HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 5228ORD 5099;ORD 5181
CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.5228
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE 2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S 2004
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,MAPS AND DATA IN CONJUNCTION
THEREWITH.
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Renton has heretofore adopted and filed a
"Comprehensive Plan"and the City Council of Renton has implemented and amended said
"Comprehensive Plan"from time to time,together with the adoption of various codes,reports
and records;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has heretofore recommended to the City Council,
from time to time,certain amendments to the City's "Comprehensive Plan";and
WHEREAS,the City of Renton,pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management
Act,has been required to review its "Comprehensive Plan";and
WHEREAS,the City has held a public hearing on this matter;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has made certain findings and recommendations
to the City Council,including implementing policies;and
WHEREAS,the City Council has duly determined after due consideration ofthe
testimony and evidence before it that it is advisable and appropriate to amend and modify the
City's "Comprehensive Plan";and
WHEREAS,such modification and elements for the "Comprehensive Plan"are in the
best interest for the public benefit;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON,DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
I
SECTION I.
ORDINANCE NO.5228
The "Comprehensive Plan,"maps,data and repolis in support of
the "Comprehensive Plan"are hereby modified,amended and adopted as said "Comprehensive
Plan"consisting of the following elements:Capital Facilities,Community Design,Land Use
and Land Use Map,and Transportation as shown on Attachments A,B,C,D and E and
incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
SECTIONll.The Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic
Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary
changes on said City's "Comprehensive Plan"and the maps in conjunction therewith to evidence
the aforementioned five amendments.
SECTIONllI.The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file this ordinance as
provided by law,and a complete copy of said document likewise being on file with the office of
the City Clerk of the City ofRentol1.
SECTIONIY.
five days after publication.
This ordinance shan be effective upon its passage,approval and
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 27th dayof November
Bonnie 1.Walton,City Clerk
,2006.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 27 t h day of---..eN:..:-.;o'-'vc...;:e:..:::m:..=b-=e..:::..r --",2006.
Kathy Keolker,Mayor
2
ORDINANCE NO.5228
API1p.r ed as to fonn::
.cX~2ZV~
Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney
Date of Publication:12/1/2006 (summary)
ORD.1304:11/20/06:ma
3
ATTACHMENT A
III-1
ATTACHMENT A
CAPITAL FACILTIES ELEMENT
2005 to 2010
GOAL
Develop and implement the capital facilities plan for the City of Renton.
ATTACHMENT A
III-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CAPITAL USE FACILITIES
Growth Management Act ..................................................................................................................................................... III-4
Growth Projections .............................................................................................................................................................. III-5
Capital Facilities Plan Policies ............................................................................................................................................. III-7
Transportation Capital Facilities Plan .................................................................................................................................. III-8
Water Capital Facilities Plan .............................................................................................................................................. III-16
Wastewater Capital Facilities Plan ..................................................................................................................................... III-21
Surface Water Utility Capital Facilities Plan ..................................................................................................................... III-25
Park, Recreation and Open Space ...................................................................................................................................... III-29
Public Safety Capital Facilities Plan .................................................................................................................................. III-41
Fire Capital Facilities Plan ................................................................................................................................................. III-42
Economic Development/Administration ............................................................................................................................ III-46
ATTACHMENT A
III-3
Purpose
The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan is:
• to identify the new or expanded public facilities that will be needed to accommodate --at an established level of
service--the growth projected to occur within the City of Renton in the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan;
and
• to identify the sources of public financing for these public facilities.
Methods and Process
The Capital Facilities Plan relies heavily on the analyses and policies presented in the other seven elements of the
Comprehensive Plan as well as in the Fire Department Master Plan, Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space
Plan, Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, Issaquah ,Kent and Renton School District’s Capital Improvement
Plans, and City of Renton Annual Capital Improvements Plan . For detailed information and explanations concerning
growth projections, land use determinations, existing facilities, level of service, etc., the reader must consult these
documents. The Capital Facilities Plan incorporates by reference the information and analyses presented in these other
documents and the annual updates to these plans concerning existing facilities and level of service standards.
Based on these other documents, the Capital Facilities Plan establishes policies for determining which public facilities
should be built and how they should be paid for, and presents a six-year plan for the use of public funds toward
building and funding the needed capital facilities. The process for arriving at the six-year plan involved identifying
existing facilities and level of service standards and then applying the projected growth in residential population and
employment to identify the needed capital facilities. The timing of the facilities was established through a combination
of the requirements of the city's concurrency policy and the length of time it takes to implement the needed facility.
Type and Providers of Capital Facilities
For the purposes of complying with the requirements of the GMA, the Capital Facilities Plan proposes a six-year plan
for the following capital facilities and providers:
transportation City of Renton
domestic water City of Renton
sanitary sewer City of Renton
surface water City of Renton
parks facilities City of Renton
fire City of Renton
police City of Renton
economic development City of Renton
ATTACHMENT A
III-4
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
REQUIREMENTS
Passed by the legislature in 1990, the Growth Management Act establishes planning goals as well as specific content
requirements to guide local jurisdictions in the development and adoption of comprehensive plans.
One of the thirteen planning goals stated in the Act is to:
Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the
development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current
service levels below locally established minimum standards. (RCW 36.70A.020(12))
To this end, the Act requires that each comprehensive plan contains:
A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public
entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such
capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a
six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies
sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable
funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan
element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. (RCW
36.70A.070(3))
With respect to transportation facilities, the Act is more specific, requiring that:
...transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent
with the development and defining "concurrent with development" to mean "that improvements or strategies
are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
improvements or strategies within six years." (RCW 36.70A.070(6))
The Act also requires that:
...cities shall perform their activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with their
comprehensive plans. (RCW 36.70A.120)
Administrative Regulations (WAC 365-195)
In support of the GMA legislation, state administrative regulations require that the Capital Facilities Plan consist of at
least the following features (WAC 365-195-315(1)):
1. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the
capital facilities.
2. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities.
3. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities.
4. At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly
identifies sources of public money for such purposes.
5. A reassessment of the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs.
In the administrative regulations, the state recommends that in addition to transportation, concurrency should be sought
for domestic water and sanitary sewer systems. (WAC 365-195-060(3))
Additionally, the regulations state that the planning for all elements, including the Capital Facilities Plan, should be
undertaken with the goal of economic development in mind even though the Act does not mandate an economic
development element for the plan. (WAC 365-195-060(2))
ATTACHMENT A
III-5
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The Puget Sound Regional Council population and employment forecast growth for the City over the twenty-one-year
interval from 2001 to 2022 is an increase of 9,723 households, and 33,600 jobs. Growth targets adopted by the Growth
Management Planning Council anticipate 6,198 households and 27,597 jobs. Both forecast growth and targets are well
within the City’s estimated land capacity of 11,261 units and 32,240 jobs established through the Buildable Lands
requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Renton is planning for its regional share of forecast growth
over the next 20 years at the high end of the range, and the adopted target at the low end of the range. In the first 9
years of growth management actual growth in Renton exceeded targets, but was within the range predicted by the
forecast growth assumptions. With external factors, including the regional economy, state/federal transportation
funding and the GMA regulatory environment remaining constant or improving, Renton’s growth is anticipated to
continue over the next 6 year planning cycle.
The following chart summarizes Renton’s forecast growth, targets and land use capacity.
Incorporated
Renton
2001-2022
(21yrs)
Adjusted Target/Capacity
Reflecting
Growth/Annexation/Land
Use Changes in 2001 and
2002
Capital Facilities
Plan Planning
Incorporated
Renton
2005-2010
Annualized
Estimate
Forecast Growth
9,723 units
33,600 jobs
22,266
population*
None 2,778 units
9,600 jobs
463 units
1,600 jobs
(21 yrs)
Growth Targets
6,198 units
27,597 jobs
14,194
population*
4,523 units
26,736 jobs
1,428 units
8,442 jobs
238 units
1,407 jobs
(19 yrs adjusted
for remaining
target)
Capacity
established by
Buildable Lands
11,261 units
32,240 jobs*
25,788
population*
9,634 units
30,699 jobs
NA NA
* Additional zoned capacity established for the Urban Center-North through the Boeing Comprehensive Plan
Amendments in 2003 of 10,600,000 square feet of employment uses, 360 hotel rooms, and 3,225 units is not yet
incorporated into the Buildable Lands data base. However, transportation infrastructure planning for the Urban
Center-North is included in the next 6-year planning cycle for the Capital Facilities Element and will be reflected in
the Transportation section of this Element. Population increase estimates are based on a household size of 2.29.
For the purpose of developing a six-year capital facilities plan for the period from 2005 through 2010, an estimate was
made as to the amount of the remaining 21-year growth to be realized during the six-year Capital Facilities Element
planning cycle. After reviewing the projections and the underlying assumptions, it was determined that for planning
purposes, the most prudent course was to assume a uniform allocation of the forecast growth and targets over the 21-
year period, rather than trying to predict year by year economic cycles.
ATTACHMENT A
III-6
Renton’s growth over the first years of growth management is occurring more rapidly than originally forecast. The
estimate for 2001 was 48,456 persons however the actual population by April 1, 2001 was 51,140, exceeding forecast
growth by 2,684 persons housed in 1,177 housing units over a 6 year period (196 units per year). By April 1, 2004, the
City population was 55,360, representing an increase of another 4,220 residents and an estimated 1, 850 units. The
number of units realized between 2002 and 2004 exceeds the forecast projection of 1,389 units by 461 units (153 units
per year). Some of this development can be explained by new housing developed in areas annexing to the City.
However, the increase exceeds the proportional share of housing target and forecast growth assigned to this annexation
area and assumed by the City upon annexation.
For the purposes of the next phase of the planning cycle, the 2005 to 2010 six-year Capital Facilities Plan, Renton will
continue plan for the next six-year increment of forecast growth assuming an increase of 2,778 units and 9,600 jobs.
Forecast growth represents the upper end of expected growth, while the target of 1,356 units and 8,022 jobs
represented the minimum amount of growth expected for this period. The City's population in the year 2010 is forecast
as 61,694 persons.
To be sure, growth will not occur precisely as projected over the next six-year or the 21-year period. Recognizing this
fact, the Capital Facilities Plan should be updated at least biennially. In this way local governments have the
opportunity to re-evaluate their forecasts in light of the actual growth experienced, revise their forecasts for the next
six years if necessary, and adjust the number and timing of capital facilities that would be needed during the ensuing
six-year period. The City performed such a review of the Capital Facilities Plan in 2004 and determined that there was
not a need to adjust the growth forecast or the number and timing of capital facilities. This conclusion was based on a
finding that although actual growth was higher than forecast, the level of service standards were being maintained.
Subsequent reviews may result in revisions to the growth projections and the number and timing of capital facilities if
actual growth continues to exceed the forecast growth
As stated in Policy CFP-1, this Capital Facilities Plan is anticipated to be updated regularly as part of the city's budget
process, thereby ensuring that the Plan reflects the most current actual statistics related to growth in Renton, and that
capital facilities are slated for implementation in accordance with both the level of service standards and the city's
concurrency policy. It is anticipated that the City will fully implement this policy (CFP-1) in the annual budget
process.
ATTACHMENT A
III-7
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN POLICIES
Policy CFP-1. The Capital Facilities Plan should be updated on a regular basis as part of the city's budget process, and
such update may include adjustments to growth projections for the ensuing six years, to level of service standards, to
the list of needed facilities, or to anticipated funding sources. For the purpose of capital facilities planning, plan for
forecast growth at the high end of the projected range and targeted growth as a minimum.
Policy CFP-2. Level of service standards should be maintained at the current or at a greater level of service for
existing facilities within the City of Renton, which the City has control over.
Policy CFP-3. Adequate public capital facilities should be in place concurrent with development. Concurrent with
development shall mean the existence of adequate facilities, strategies or services when development occurs or the
existence of a financial commitment to provide adequate facilities, strategies, or services within six years of when
development occurs.
Policy CFP-4. No deterioration of existing levels of service that the City of Renton has control over should occur due
to growth, consistent with Policy CFP-3.
Policy CFP-5. Funding for new, improved or expanded public facilities or services should come from a mix of
sources in order to distribute the cost of such facilities or services according to use, need, and adopted goals and
policies.
Policy CFP-6. Evaluate levying impact fees on development for municipal services and/or school district services
upon the request of each school district within the City limitsthe district, if a compelling need is established through
means such as presentation of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan and demonstration that such facilities are needed to
accommodate projected growth and equitably distributed throughout the district.
Policy CFP-7 Adopt by reference the Kent School District # 415 Capital Facilities Plan 2006-2007 – 2011-2012 and
adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District’s adopted Capital
Facilities Plan
Policy CFT-8 Adopt by reference the Issaquah School District #411 Capital Facilities Plan 2006-2012 and adopt an
implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District’s adopted Capital Facilities Plan
(See the Public Facilities and Annexation Sections of the Land Use Element, the Parks, Recreation Trails and Open
Space Element, the Utilities Element, and the Transportation Elements for policies related to this Capital Facilities
Plan.)
ATTACHMENT A
III-8
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 - 2010
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 on the following pages indicate the degree to which Renton's transportation system is
integrally linked to the regional transportation system. The first exhibit is of the existing street and highway system;
the second depicts traffic flows on that system in 2002; and, the third depicts daily traffic volumes forecasted for 2022.
In Renton perhaps more than in any other jurisdiction in the Puget Sound area, actions relating to the transportation
system have local and regional implications.
Level of Service
Background
In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building
enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to
emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The LOS policy is based on three premises:
• Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by
regional policies and plans;
• It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy
vehicle (SOV) travel; and
• The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel.
ATTACHMENT A
III-9
Fig. 7-1
Existing Street/Highway System
ATTACHMENT A
III-10
Figure 7-2
Traffic Flow Map
ATTACHMENT A
III-11
Fig. 7-3
2022 Daily Traffic Volumes
ATTACHMENT A
III-12
The LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and
transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several
objectives:
• Allow reasonable development to occur;
• Encourage a regionally linked, locally oriented, dynamic transportation system;
• Meet requirements of the Growth Management Act;
• Meet the requirements of the Countywide Planning Policies Level of Service Framework Policies;
• Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and
• Provide flexibility for Renton to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS standards by
not providing regional facilities.
The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit
measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized
and TDM measures assist in meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region.
The Level of Service Standard Methodology
The following table demonstrates how the LOS policy is applied. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been calculated
for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30-minute travel distance for SOV, HOV and Transit as follows:
Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions
SOV HOV
2 Transit
(includes access time)
LOS
Standard
XX miles XX miles 2 times X miles = XX XX
City-wide Level of Service Standard (Years 2002 and 2022)
The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to
decrease by 2022. Therefore, SOV improvements will need to be implemented to raise the SOV equivalent or a
combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit
equivalents to maintain the LOS standard.
Renton's Transportation Improvement Plan Arterial, HOV and Transit Sub-Elements have been tested against the
above LOS standard to assure that the Plan meets the year 2022 standard.
City-wide Level of Service Index (Year2002):
Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions
SOV
HOV
2 Transit
(includes access time)
LOS
Index
16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42*
*Rounded
NOTE: The 1990 LOS Index of 49 (which was the basis for the 2010 LOS standard) presented in
Renton’s Comprehensive Plan adopted February 20, 1995 was based on raw travel distance data
collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced
Renton (1990-2010) transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. A LOS index of
42 has been determined for the year 2002 by the new calibrated (2002-2022) transportation model that
reflects 2002 and 2022 land use data. The 2002 LOS index of 42 is shown above, and is the basis for
the 2022 LOS standard.
ATTACHMENT A
III-13
City-wide Level of Service Standard (Year 2022):
Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions
SOV
HOV
2 Transit
(includes access time)
LOS
Standard
15 miles 17 miles 10 miles 42
The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit
measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized
and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region.
To check the progress toward the 2022 goal, each year the city will assess the level of service as a part of its annual
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). This assessment will further ensure that level of service is maintained for the
current period as well as for 2022.
Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2005 - 2010
The transportation 6-year facilities plan is based on achieving the desired level of service by the year 2022 through an
annual program of consistent and necessary improvements and strategies. Additionally, the plan includes projects such
as bridge inspections, street overlay programs, traffic signal maintenance, and safety improvements that are needed as
part of the City's annual work program. Projects that promote economic development also are included, as encouraged
by the GMA. See Table 7-1 on the following page for the latest adopted 6-year plan.
The first step in developing the 6-year funding plan was to establish a 20-year plan that included arterial, HOV and
transit components. This effort resulted in a planning level cost estimate of $134 million. The cost for arterials and
HOV are total costs (or Renton's share of the cost of joint projects with WSDOT and local jurisdictions). The transit
costs include only the local match for local feeder system improvements, park and ride lots, signal priority and transit
amenities.
Having established a 20-year funding level of $134 million, an annual funding level of $6.7 million was established.
With this funding level, it is reasonably certain that the desired level of service will be maintained over the intervening
years as long as the facilities funded each year are consistent with the 20-year plan and transit and HOV facilities are
conscientiously emphasized.
The funding source projections in Table 7-2 are based upon the assumption that: gas tax revenue would continue at no
less than $0.35 million per year; that grant funding would be maintained at $3.90 million per year; . business license
fees would continue at $1.88 million per year based on the current 85% of the annual revenue generated from this fee
that is dedicated to fund transportation improvements; and that $0.57 million per year from mitigation fees would be
maintained. Based on forecasts of total new vehicle trips from development, a mitigation fee of $75 per trip has been
established.
Developers are required to implement site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent facility impacts
are mitigated, as well as paying their required fees.
ATTACHMENT A
III-14
Table 7-1
2005 - 2010 Six-Year TIP
Total Project Costs
ATTACHMENT A
III-15
Table 7-2
2005 - 2010 Six-Year TIP
Summary of Funding Sources
ATTACHMENT A
III-16
WATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 - 2010
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Renton's water system provides service to an area of approximately 16 square miles and more than 14,700 customers
located in 12 hydraulically-distinct pressure zones. An inventory of the existing capital facilities in the water system is
listed in Figure 8-1 and consists of 8 wells and one spring for water supply, eleven booster pump stations, eight
reservoirs, water treatment facilities at each source (chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control) and approximately
283 miles of water main in service. In addition, the City maintains one standby well and seven metered connections
with the City of Seattle (Cedar River and Bow Lake supply pipelines) for emergency back-up supply. Renton supplies
water on a wholesale basis to Lakeridge Bryn-Mawr Water District.
Level of Service
Level of service for Renton's Water Utility is defined by the ability to provide an adequate amount of high quality
water to all parts of the distribution system at adequate pressure during peak demand or fire. This ability is determined
by the physical condition of the system and the capacity of supply, storage, treatment, pumping and distribution
systems. Level of service standards for the water system vary according to the component of the overall system and
are determined by the requirements established by local, state, and federal regulations. Water supply is regulated by
the Washington State Department of Ecology (water rights), and the Washington State Department of Health (quantity
guidelines), water quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Safe Drinking Water Act) and
the Washington State Department of Health (primacy over Safe Drinking Water Act), system design and construction
requirements are regulated by the Washington State Department of Health.
The Water Utility maintains a hydraulic model of the water system. The model incorporates the pipe size and location,
booster pumps, and storage to determine the flow and pressure available in each segment of the distribution system.
The Utility can evaluate the impact of a specific development on the system using the model. The Water Utility
reviews each development in terms of flow, pressure and water supply required.
The Water Utility's goal is to provide an adequate supply of potable water under the "worst case" scenario. This
scenario considers the following conditions: failure of the largest source of supply, failure of the largest mechanical
component, power failure to a single power grid, and/or a reservoir out of service. Under this scenario, the Water
Utility strives to meet the following primary requirements:
Pressure: Maintain a minimum of 30 pounds per square inch (psi) at the meter during normal demand
conditions and a minimum of 20 psi during an emergency. Maximum allowable pressure at the meter during
normal demand is 130 psi and a maximum of 150 psi during an emergency
Velocity: Under normal demand conditions, the velocity in a transmission main is less than 4 feet per second
(fps) and less than 8 fps during an emergency.
Supply: The water supply must meet the maximum day demand and replenish storage within 72 hours with
the largest source of supply out of service.
Storage: Storage volume must be maintained to provide for peak demand and adequate volume for an
emergency (fire).
Transmission and Distribution: The Water Utility uses design criteria approved by the Washington State
Department of Health.
Treatment and Monitoring: The Water Utility treats all sources with chlorine and fluoride and corrosion
control. Water quality monitoring is conducted as required by the State Department of Health under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The City implements a cross connection control program to prevent cross connections
with non potable sources and a wellhead protection program.
Fire Flow: Fire flow required by a development is as established in the fire code and can vary from 1000
gallons per minute to 5500 gallons per minute.
Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2005 - 2010
ATTACHMENT A
III-17
Based on the projected growth in population and employment by the year 2010, the existing supply of water will meet
the level of service standard. As Table 8-1 indicates, with the addition of Wells 11, 12 and 17, the net capacity of the
system is 27.07 million gallons per day, which is adequate to meet the City’s anticipated growth and maximum day
demand for water to at least 2020. Meeting the current fire flow level of service standards will require improvements
to the existing water system if the projected commercial and industrial growth occurs. In general, fire flow is adequate
to all single family and multi-family areas with the possible exception of portions of downtown, depending on the
extent of new multi-family development and the type of construction. Certain areas slated for commercial and
industrial growth will need upgrading of the system.
Other improvements to the water system will be needed during the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan because
of regulatory requirements relating to water quality and efforts to maintain the existing system at the desired level of
service.
The list of growth-related facilities needed to meet all of the level of service standards and regulatory requirements are
in Table 8-2.
The funds for the needed facilities are projected to come from a number of sources, including: water utility rates,
connection fees, developer extension agreements, low interest loans from state or federal programs, and grants from
state and federal agencies. The projected total revenue from all sources for each of the six years in also shown in
Table 8-2.
ATTACHMENT A
III-18
Table 8-1
On-Line Supply Sources – Existing Water Supply Capacity
Name Pumping Rate (gpm)Pumping Rate (mgd)
Springbrook 600 0.86
Well RW-1 2,200 3.17
Well RW-2 2,200 3.17
Well RW-3 2,200 3.17
Well RW-5A 1,400 2.02
Well PW-8 3,500 5.04
Well PW-9 1,200 1.73
Well PW-11 2,500 3.60
Well PW-12 1,500 2.16
Well PW-17 1,500 2.16
TOTAL 18,800 GPM 27.07 MGD
GPM: gallon per minute
MGD: million gallon per day
Total annual water rights are 14,809 acre-feet per year
ATTACHMENT A
III-19
Table 8-2
Water Capital Facilities
Summary of Water Utilities Capital Improvement Projects
2005 –2010
ATTACHMENT A
III-20
Figure 2-2
Existing Water System
ATTACHMENT A
III-21
WASTEWATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005-2010
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Renton's sanitary sewer system consists of about 184 miles of gravity sewers, 23 lift stations with associated force
mains, and approximately 3,400 manholes. Wastewater is discharged to regional facilities at over 70 locations within
the service area. The locations of Renton's sewer interceptors and lift stations, as well as Metro's sewer lines, are
shown in Figure 9-1.
The City's Wastewater Utility serves approximately 13,800 customers, which includes approximately ninety-five
percent of the city's population and eighty-five percent of the city's land area. The remaining five percent of the
population currently utilizes private, on-site wastewater disposal systems, typically septic system, while the balance of
the land area either utilizes private systems or remains undeveloped.
The capacity of the existing facilities is adequate to handle the current demand. The Lake Washington East Basin
while currently having sufficient capacity, needs some improvements to its Sunset Interceptor to assure sufficient
capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. The West Renton Sub-basin also needs to be further evaluated to
determine potential capacity restraints. As part of the Wastewater Utility’s update to its Long-Range Wastewater
Management Plan scheduled for 2005, a full hydraulic model is being developed to evaluate, system wide, the long
term need and timing for upsizing of existing interceptors and the timing for additional interceptors for new portions of
our service area.
Level of Service
Level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is defined by the ability to move sewage from the point of origin, the
customer, to the treating agency, King County, in a safe and efficient manner. This ability is determined by the
physical condition of Renton's system and the capacity available in the system. It is the Renton Wastewater Utility's
responsibility to maintain the system in a safe condition and monitor the standards for new construction. The
Wastewater Utility is also responsible for ensuring that capacity exists in the system prior to new connections or that
the capacity is created as part of the new development.
The level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is developed through coordination with and subject to the policies,
design criteria, and standards used for planning and operating a sanitary sewer system as established by the laws and
policies of several agencies. Those agencies, in order by authority, are the Department of Ecology (Criteria for
Sewage Works Design), King County (King County Wastewater Treatment Division), and the City of Renton.
The Wastewater Utility has maintained a simple hydraulic model of the sewer system. This model uses the size, type,
and slope of the pipes to determine the capacity of the each component (segment) of the system. Because the slope of
pipes can change segment to segment and flows may be merging at 'branches' the capacity of the system may change
block by block. It is, therefore, not feasible, with our current model, to provide a standard statement on the capacity
available in Renton's sewer system. As stated above, the Utility is developing a new hydraulic model that will allow
the Utility to perform dynamic analysis on any portion of its interceptor system given any scenario, to determine
capacity within the system. The model is also based upon two years worth of wet-weather data that was developed as
part of a regional effort by King County. This new tool will give us much greater ability to predict future capacity
within our interceptors.
The Wastewater Utility's goal is to have sufficient capacity to handle what the Utility considers the 'worst case
scenario'. That is, the amount of waste if everybody was discharging their highest amount at the same time and the
system was experiencing the highest amount of inflow and infiltration anticipated.
ATTACHMENT A
III-22
For existing and projected development Renton uses the following criteria for flow projection:
Average Single Family Domestic Flow 270 gallons per day per unit
Average Multi-Family Domestic Flow 190 gallons per day per unit
Light Industrial 2800 gallons per acre per day
Heavy Industrial site specific
Commercial 2800 gallons per acre per day
Office 2800 gallons per acre per day
Recreation 300 gallons per acre per day
Public 600 gallons per acre per day
Manufacturing Park 2800 gallons per acre per day
Peak Infiltration (New System) 600 gallons per acre per day
Peak Inflow (New System) 500 gallons per acre per day
Peak Inflow/Infiltration (Existing System) From Sewer Hydraulic Model
Peaking factor for system average 2.0 X
Depth to Diameter Ratio 0.80 (eight tenths)
The criteria listed above are based upon Table IV-3 of the 1998 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, with an
amendment for actual Inflow and Infiltration values based upon our updated hydraulic model. This criterion is subject
to change based upon the latest adopted Long Range Wastewater Management Plan or amendments thereto. These
flows are averages used as standards. Actual design flows may vary considerably, depending upon land use. The
Wastewater Utility will consider verifiable alternate design flows that may be submitted.
If Renton's sewer system has the capacity to handle the flows projected, based upon the above criteria, or a developer
improves the system to provide the capacity, the project achieves concurrence with the Wastewater Utility's level of
service.
Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan 2005-2010
Based on the forecasted growth in population and employment over the next 20 years, daily wastewater flows are
predicted to increase by about 10.5 million gallons per day (mgd.) This increase is expected to impact the entire
system, with the greatest impact expected to occur in the East Cedar River Basin and Lake Washington East Basin. In
order to maintain the desired level of service and accommodate the projected growth, facility improvements will be
needed in the Lake Washington East Basin over the next three years.
Another factor affecting level of service is the age of the existing system. A significant portion of the city's wastewater
collection and conveyance system is over fifty years old. Some of these mains cannot be relied upon to provide the
desired level of service without major repair and/or replacement. Consequently, the primary component of the six-year
facility plan is the repair and replacement of the existing system in order to maintain the current level of service. Some
of the geographic areas in which these mains are located will experience more growth than will others, but facility
improvements will be needed regardless.
It is currently the policy of the Wastewater Utilities that all parcels connecting to the sewer system pay for their fair
share of the system. This is accomplished in a combination of three methods:
1. Local Improvement Districts may be formed with the city installing the sewers using LID bonds
encumbering the participating parcels;
2. The Wastewater Utility may front the cost of new sewers and hold Special Assessment Districts
against benefiting parcels; and
3. Developers or potential users will front the cost of extending the main with the ability to hold a
latecomer agreement against the other parcels that potentially benefit.
Projects that replace and rehabilitate the existing system, as well as operation and maintenance costs, will be funded
through rates paid by existing customers. Existing sewer customers will not be required to participate in Special
Assessment District fees, latecomer fees, or local improvement districts unless they redevelop or increase the density
on their property.
ATTACHMENT A
III-23
Table 9-1 below lists the projects needed to meet growth, along with the sources of funds for them for the period 2005-
2010, based upon the six-year growth projections and the desired level of wastewater service.
Table 9-1
Wastewater Capital Facilities
2005-2010
Wastewater Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Sanitary Sewer Main Extensions 2,000 ---- -
Total
Sources of Funds:
Oper. Rev/Bonds 2,000
Licenses and Fees
Other Taxes
Grants
Loans
Not Funded
Total 2,000 - - - - -
ATTACHMENT A
III-24
Fig. 9-1
Sanitary Sewer Trunk Lines
ATTACHMENT A
III-25
SURFACE WATER UTILITY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005-2010
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The City of Renton is composed of various drainage basins and sub-basins. The major basins within the existing City
limits include the East Lake Washington, West Lake Washington, May Creek, Lower Cedar River and Black River
basins. The City of Renton is located at the outlet end of a majority of these basins that discharge into either the
Green/Duwamish River or into Lake Washington.
The Surface Water Utility's service area within the existing City corporate boundaries is approximately 17.2 square
miles. The existing surface water system includes rivers, streams, ditches, swales, lakes, wetlands, detention facilities
(pond and piped systems), water quality swales, wetponds, wetvaults, oil/water separators, coalescing plate oil/water
separators, pipes, catch basins, manholes, outfalls and pump stations. The natural surface water systems (rivers,
streams, lakes and wetlands) are shown on Renton's Critical Area Maps.
A majority of the water quantity and quality facilities are privately owned and maintained on-site as required in
accordance with the Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance (RMC Chapter 22, Section 4-22).
The Surface Water Utility owns, maintains and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located
within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated for storm and surface water management purposes. The Utility
currently owns, operates and maintains approximately 204 miles of storm pipe systems including approximately 8000
catch basin and manhole structures, 19 detention facilities and 37.67 miles of ditch systems. A combination of the
public and some of the private storm system is shown in the Surface Water Utility Storm System Inventory Maps and
Attributes data base which is too large to present here.
Level of Service
Background
The Surface Water Utility's policies, design criteria, and standards used for planning, engineering, operating and
maintaining the storm and surface water systems are based upon requirements that originate from many sources.
Together, these regulations define the acceptable level of service for surface water.
The primary Federal, State and local agencies and regulations which affect the City of Renton's level of service
standard for surface and storm water systems are listed below:
1. Federal Agencies/Regulations:
a. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
i. Federal Clean Water Act
ii. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit)
b. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
i. Nationwide/404 Individual Permit Requirements
ii. Federal Emergency Management Act standards
ATTACHMENT A
III-26
2. State Agencies/Regulations:
a. Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE):
i. Stormwater Discharge Permits (NPDES).
ii. Temporary Water Quality Modification Permits
iii. Water Quality Certification Permits
iv. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Permit
v. Shoreline Management Program (SMP)
vi. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan
vii. 2001 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
b. Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW)
i. Hydraulic Project Approval Permits
3. Local Agencies/Regulations
a. Cedar River Basin Plan
b. May Creek Basin Plan
c. Green River Basin Plan
d. Green River Flood Control Zone District/Green River Basin Program
e. King County Flood Hazard Reduction Plan
e. King County Surface Water Design Manual as adapted by Renton
Level of Service Standard in Renton
The Surface Water Utility level of service is the adopted surface water design standards which are consistent with the
above referenced federal, state and local regulations as specified in the City of Renton Storm and Surface Water
Drainage ordinance (RMC 4-22). New surface water management systems are designed to accommodate the future
land use condition runoff based upon the city's Land Use Element and the future land use plans of neighboring
jurisdictions.
The standards specified in the city-adopted portions of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual require
that:
1. Post-development peak rate of runoff be controlled to the pre-developed peak rate of runoff up to the 10-
year design storm;
2. Water quality facility "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) such as biofiltration, wetponds, coalescing
plate oil/water separators and erosion control measures are used;
3. Pipe systems be designed to convey the 25-year post-developed design storm without overflowing the
system and pipe conveyance systems have adequate capacity to convey the 100-year design storm
provided that the runoff is contained within defined conveyance system elements without inundating or
over topping the crown of a roadway; and/or no portions of a building will be flooded; and/or if overland
sheet flow occurs, it will flow through a drainage easement.
4. New drainage ditches or channels be designed to convey at least the peak runoff from the 100-year design
storm without over-topping.
As a condition of SEPA, the City requires projects in areas of the City that drain to streams that flow down steep
ravines to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirement and to meet the Level 2
Flow Control and Duration standard. Projects have also been required to comply with the surface water design
standards in the 2001 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington when deemed appropriate by
the City as a condition of SEPA, or because it was required as a condition of another agencies permit. It is anticipated
that the City will be adopting new storm and surface water design standards within the new two to five years to be
equivalent to the 2001 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The update is expected to
ATTACHMENT A
III-27
be required as a condition of the pending Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System National Pollution Elimination
System Phase 2 storm water permit that will be issued to the City for the discharge of runoff into waters of the United
States in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act.
Projects that comply with the above-cited standards will achieve an acceptable level of service for surface water
management purposes within the City of Renton.
Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2005-2010
The capital facilities estimated to be needed to solve current surface water management problems and to prevent future
surface water management problems associated with the growth projected for the first six years of the Comprehensive
Plan and the proposed sources of funding are listed in Table 10-1.
The sources of revenues to be utilized by the Surface Water Utility to implement the needed capital improvements
include the following:
1. Surface Water Utility rates;
2. Permit fees and system development charges;
3. Revenue bonds;
4. Private latecomers agreements;
5. Surface Water Utility Special Assessment Districts;
6. Low interest loans (state revolving funds, Public Works Trust Fund);
7. Cost-sharing interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions and special districts;
8. Army Corps of Engineers - Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects Program and other financial
assistance programs available to municipalities authorized by Congress;
9. USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Watershed Flood Prevention and Protection Act (Public Law 566)
and other SCS programs;
10. Grants from state and federal agencies such as:
a. Washington State Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund;
b. Washington State Department of Community Development Flood Control Assistance Account
Program;
c. Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board and other grants that may be available from the
County, State or Federal Government to improve fish habitat;
d. Washington State legislative appropriations approved for Special Surface Water Utility projects
(Cedar River Delta project); and
11. Other unidentified federal, state and local grant programs.
As is evident in Table 10-1 on the following page, the Surface Water Utility proposed to use all or any combination of
the financial sources to fund the needed capital facilities.
ATTACHMENT A
III-28
Table 10-1
Surface Water Utility Capital Facilities
2005-2010
Surface Water Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Wetland Mitigation Bank 50 150 1,300 - -
Storm System Improvement 900 1130 800 1120 1580 675
Springbrook Creek Improvements 150 850 0 100 200
Cedar River Basin Plan - - 130 700 -
Green River Ecosystem Restoration 10 10 10 20 10 10
May Creek Basin Plan Implement. 275 - - - -
Lower Cedar River Sediment
Management Program
275 250 250 250 600 1300
Small Drainage Problems Program 180 150 150 150 150 150
Miscellaneous & Emergency
Projects
50 50 50 50 50 50
Plans and Program 110 110 110 110 110 115
Total (dollars are 1000’s) 2000 2700 2800 2400 2600 2500
Sources of Funds:
Oper. Rev. Bonds 1490 2200 2300 1900 2100 2000
Licenses and Fees 500 500 500 500 500 500
Other Taxes
Grants 10
Loans
Not Funded
Total 2000 2700 2800 2400 2600 2500
ATTACHMENT A
III-29
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005-2010
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The City of Renton is the primary provider of park and recreation services within the city limits. These services
include parks, indoor facilities, open space areas and recreation programs. Other suppliers that provide facilities and
services include the Renton School District and several private enterprises.
Table 11-1 below is a summary of the amount of park and open space area provided by the City of Renton; provided
by others within the City’s Proposed Annexation Area (PAA) and the total for the overall Planning Area.
Table 11-1
Park and Open Space Areas
Summary
Type of Facility Renton PAA Planning Area Total
Neighborhood Parks 92.49 22.70 115.19
Community Parks 130.36 90.00 220.36
Regional Parks 55.33 0.00 55.33
Open Space Areas 683.11 236.00 919.11
Linear Parks & Trails 91.21 0.00 91.21
Special Use Parks & Facilities 190.02 0.00 190.02
TOTAL 1,242.52 348.70 1,591.22
Tables 11-2 and 11-3 on the following pages list the individual park and open space areas that comprise the categories
summarized above. Table 11-2 details Renton’s Parks and Open Spaces by category and Table 11-3 lists public land
in Renton’s PAA. The table lists the name of each park or open space, its size in acres, and its status as of January
2001.
The locations of the individual park facilities listed in Table 11-2 are shown in Figure 11-1, which immediately
follows the Table.
ATTACHMENT A
III-30
Table 11-2
Public Park and Open Space Areas in Renton
Detailed Listing
Park Acres Status
Neighborhood Parks (20)
Earlington Park 1.54 Developed
Glencoe Park .42 Developed
Heather Downs Park 4.30 Undeveloped
Jones Park 1.18 Developed
Kennydale Beach 1.76 Developed
Kennydale Lions Park 5.66 Developed
Kiwanis Park 9.00 Developed
Maplewood Park 2.20 Developed
Maplewood Roadside Park 1.00 Developed
North Highlands Park 2.64 Developed
Philip Arnold Park 10.00 Developed
Riverview Park 11.50 Developed
Sit In Park 0.50 Developed
Springbrook Watershed Park 16.00 Undeveloped
Sunset Court 0.50 Developed
Talbot Hill Reservoir 2.50 Developed
Thomas Teasdale Park 10.00 Developed
Tonkins Park 0.29 Developed
Tiffany Park 7.00 Developed
Windsor Hill Park 4.50 Developed
TOTAL 92.49 Acres
Community Parks (7)
Cedar River Park 23.07 Developed
Cedar River Trail Park 24.20 Developed
Highlands Park 10.40 Developed
Liberty Park 11.89 Developed
Narco Property 15.00 Undeveloped
Piazza & Gateway 0.80 Developed
Ron Regis Park 45.00 Developed
TOTAL 130.36 Acres
Regional Parks (1)
Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 55.33 Developed
T O T A L 5 5 . 3 3 A c r e s
Open Space Areas (10)
Black River Riparian Forest 92.00 Undeveloped
Cedar River Natural Area 237.00 Undeveloped
Cleveland Property 23.66 Undeveloped
Honey Creek 35.73 Undeveloped
Lake Street 1.00 Undeveloped
May Creek/McAskill 10.00 Undeveloped
May Creek Greenway 29.82 Undeveloped
Panther Creek Wetlands 73.00 Undeveloped
ATTACHMENT A
III-31
Renton Wetlands 125.00 Undeveloped
Springbrook Watershed 38.00 Undeveloped
Edlund/Korum Property 17.90 Undeveloped
TOTAL 683.11 Acres
Linear Parks & Trails (7)
Burnett Linear Park 1.0 acre Developed
Cedar River Trail 4.5 miles Developed
Honey Creek Trail 1.0 miles Developed
Springbrook Trail 2.0 miles Developed
S.W. 16th Trail .5 miles Developed
Garden/16th/Houser 1.0 miles Developed
Lake Washington Blvd 1.5 miles Developed
TOTAL 10.5 Miles. 1 Acre
Special Use Parks & Facilities (10)
Boathouse 4,242 s.f. Developed
Carco Theatre (310 seats) 11,095 s.f. Developed
Community Garden/Greenhouse .46 acres Developed
Highlands Neighborhood Center 11,906 s.f. Developed
Maplewood Golf Course 190 acres Developed
Maplewood Golf Course/Restaurant/Pro Shop 15,508 s.f. Developed
Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range 11,559 s.f. Developed
North Highlands Neighborhood Center 4,432 s.f. Developed
Renton Community Center 36,000 s.f. Developed
Renton Senior Activity Center 18,264 s.f. Developed
Veterans Memorial Park 0.2 acres Developed
TOTAL 181,825 Sq. Ft., 190.66 Acres
CITY-WIDE TOTAL 1,152.95 Acres
10.5 Miles
181,825 Square Feet
ATTACHMENT A
III-32
Table 11-3
Public park and open space areas in Renton’s Proposed Annexation Areas (PAAs)
Detailed Listing
Maplewood Community Park Site 40.0 Acres Undeveloped
Petrovitsky Park 50.0 Acres Developed
Sub-Total (Community Parks) 90.0 Acres
Sierra Heights Park 4.7 Acres Developed
Maplewood Park 4.8 Acres Developed
Cascade Park 10.7 Acres Developed
Lake Youngs Park 2.5 Acres Developed
Sub-Total (Neighborhood Parks) 22.7 Acres
May Creek Greenway 150.0 Acres
Renton Park 19.0 Acres
Metro Waterworks 10.0 Acres
Maplewood Heights 5.0 Acres
Soos Creek Greenway 52.0 Acres
Sub-Total (Open Space) 236.0 Acres
Total, Public Park and Open Space
Within Renton’s Proposed
Annexation Areas ............................................... 348.7 Acres
In addition to the park and open space areas, the city operates a number of specialized facilities as an ongoing
component of the total recreational services it provides. Table 11-4 which follows lists the specialized facilities
owned by the city as well as those specialized public facilities within the city limits that are owned by others.
ATTACHMENT A
III-33
Table 11-4
Specialized Facilities within the
Renton City Limits
Number Facility Comments
Ballfields
City-owned:
1 Cedar River Park
1 Highlands Park
1 Kennydale Lions Park
1 Kiwanis Park
2 Liberty Park 2 lighted
1 Maplewood Park Small Field
1 Ron Regis Lighted
1 Philip Arnold Park Lighted
1 Thomas Teasdale Park
1 Tiffany Park
TOTAL 11 FIELDS
Within the city limits but owned by others:
2 Hazen High School
2 Highlands Elementary School Small Fields
1 Hillcrest School Small Field
4 Honeydew Elementary School Small Fields
3 McKnight Middle School
4 Nelson Middle School Small Fields
4 Renton High School
1 Talbot Hill Elementary
1 Tiffany Park Elementary
TOTAL 22 FIELDS
Number Facility Comments
Football/Soccer Fields
City -owned:
1 Cedar River Park
1 Highlands Park
1 Kiwanis Park
1 Philip Arnold Park 1 lighted
1 Ron Regis Park 1 lighted
1 Thomas Teasdale Park
1 Tiffany Park
TOTAL 7 FIELDS
Within the city limits but owned by others:
1 Hillcrest School
2 Honeydew Elementary School
1 Kennydale Elementary
1 McKnight Middle School
1 Renton High School
1 Renton Stadium 1 lighted
TOTAL 7 FIELDS
Tennis Courts
City-owned:
2 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park
2 Highlands Park 2 lighted
2 Kiwanis Park
ATTACHMENT A
III-34
3 Liberty Park 3 lighted
1 North Highlands Park
2 Philip Arnold Park 2 lighted
3 Talbot Hill Reservoir
2 Tiffany Park
TOTAL 17 COURTS
Within the city limits but owned by others:
4 Hazen High School
4 McKnight Middle School
2 Nelson Middle School
5 Renton High School
TOTAL 15 COURTS
Swimming Pools
Within the city limits but owned by others:
1 Hazen High School Indoor
TOTAL 1 POOL
Level of Service
Standards for park and recreation levels of service were first established nationally based on "Standard Demand"
and have been modified at state and local levels to meet local needs. The national level of service (LOS)
standards were established by committees of recreation professionals based on practical experience in the field,
and are felt to be most useful in quantifiable terms, i.e. acres of park land per population served. The most
recognized standards are those developed by the National Recreation Park Association (NRPA). In 1983 that
organization published a report titled "Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards" that is well recognized in
the recreation field.
The Park CFP establishes a 2-tiered approach: 1) an overall LOS standard based on total population and total
acreage; and 2) LOS standards for individual neighborhoods and for specific types of parks and facilities within
parks. The overall LOS is a gauge of whether the City is meeting overall concurrence for GMA. The second
tier identifies areas where deficiencies exist so the City can target its funds to eliminate those deficiencies while
still maintaining overall LOS.
The proposed LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its Comprehensive Park,
Recreation and Open Space plan is 18.58 acres/1,000 population. The 2004 LOS in Renton is 20.83 acres/1,000
population. The LOS within Renton’s Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) is only 6.9 acres/1,000, which
reduces the 2004 overall Planning Area LOS to 14.17 acres/1,000. Continued acquisition of park and open
space lands will be needed as the City’s residential growth continues within its existing boundaries, and as it
expands into its underserved PAA’s.
The recommended service levels for Renton were developed after discussions with City staff and the Park and
Recreation Advisory Committee. They are based on participation ratios by which a community can estimate in
quantifiable terms the number of acres or facilities required to meet the population demand. Attaching a
standard to a population variable makes it easy to forecast future needs as the population grows. The table
below identifies the current overall LOS in Renton and within Renton’s planning area.
ATTACHMENT A
III-35
Table 1
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) - OVERALL
Park & Open
Space Land
Existing
Population
LOS
(Acres/1,000)
City of Renton 1,153 55,360 20.83
Renton’s PAA’s 348.70 50,600 6.9
Total Planning Area 1,501.7 105,960 14.17
Starting below, existing service levels and recommended standards by park types within Renton are given. Each
park type compares the NRPA Standard to the existing service levels and the recommended standards. This
information is provided to indicate how Renton’s current level of service compares to national and local
standards.
ATTACHMENT A
III-36
Table 2
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) – BY PARK TYPE
Figures shown are in acres/1,000 population
Park and Open Space Areas
1. Neighborhood Parks
Definition:
Neighborhood parks are small park areas (usually 2-10 acres in size) utilized for passive use and unstructured
play. They often contain an open space for field sports, a children's playground, a multi-purpose paved area, a
picnic area and a trail system. For heavily wooded sites, the amount of active use area is substantially reduced.
NRPA Standard 1-2 Acres/1,000 Population
Existing LOS (Renton): 1.8 Acres/1,000 Population
Existing LOS (Planning Area) 1.1 Acres/1,000 Population
Recommended LOS Standard: 1.2 Acres/1,000 Population
Comments:
The recommended standard reflects the shifting emphasis on larger parks and open space recreational
opportunities that cost less to maintain and operate than do neighborhood parks.
2. Community Parks
Definition:
Community parks are traditionally larger sites that can accommodate organized play and contain a wider range
of facilities. They usually have sport fields or other major use facilities as the central focus of the park. In many
cases, they will also serve the neighborhood park function. Community parks generally average 10-25 acres in
size with a substantial portion of them devoted to active use. Sometimes, smaller sites with a singular purpose
that maintain a community-wide focus can be considered community parks.
NRPA Standard: 5-8 acres/1,000 population
Existing LOS (Renton): 2.5 acres/1,000 population
Existing LOS (Planning Area): 2.1 acres/1,000 population
Recommended LOS Standard: 2.5 acres/1,000 population
Comments:
The low existing ratio reflects a past emphasis within Renton on neighborhood parks. While the recommended
standard is well below the NRPA standard, it represents a shifting emphasis to community parks.
3. Regional Parks
Definition:
Regional parks are large park areas that serve geographical areas that stretch beyond the community. They may
serve a single purpose or offer a wide range of facilities and activities. In many cases they also contain large
areas of undeveloped open space. Many regional parks are acquired because of unique features found or
developed on the site.
ATTACHMENT A
III-37
NRPA Standard: 5-10 acres/1,000 population
Existing LOS (Renton: 1.1 acres/1,000 population
Existing LOS (Planning Area): 0.5 acres/1,000 population
Recommended Standard: 1.08 acres/1,000 population
Comments:
Renton has the potential for developing another regional park located in the Cedar River corridor. The
recommended standard of 1.08 acres per 1,000 population recognizes the potential for creating a Cedar River
Regional Park consisting of the following Special Use Parks: Cedar River Park, Maplewood Roadside Park,
Maplewood Golf Course, and the Cedar River Property.
4. Open Space Areas
Definition:
This type of park area is defined as general open space, trail systems, and other undeveloped natural areas that
includes stream corridors, ravines, easements, steep hillsides or wetlands. Often they are acquired to protect an
environmentally sensitive area or wildlife habitats. In other cases they may be drainage corridors or heavily
wooded areas. Sometimes trail systems are found in these areas.
Existing LOS (Renton) 13 acres/1,000 Population
Existing LOS (Planning Area): 8.9 acres/1,000 Population
Recommended LOS Standard: 12.7 acres/1,000 Population
Comments:
The recommended LOS Standard of 12.7 acres per 1,000 population represents an increase over the present
situation, as several additional open space systems have been identified for preservation. A majority of this type
of land is wetlands, steep slopes, or otherwise not suitable for recreational development.
5. Linear Parks
Definition:
Linear parks are open space areas, landscaped areas, trail systems and other land that generally follow stream
corridors, ravines or other elongated features, such as a street, railroad or power line easement. This type of
park area usually consists of open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of
this type of area.
Existing LOS (Renton): 1.9 acres/1,000 Population
Existing LOS (Planning Area): 0.9 acres/1,000 Population
Recommended Standard: 0.3 acres/1,000 Population
Comments:
The majority of linear park land is found along the banks of the Cedar River and Honey Creek. There are other
opportunities for linear parks utilizing utility corridors.
6. Special Use Parks and Facilities
Definition:
Specialized parks and facilities include areas that generally restrict public access to certain times of the day or to
specific recreational activities. The golf course and major structures are included in this category.
Existing LOS (Renton): 3.7 acres/1,000 Population
Existing LOS (Planning Area): 1.8 acres/1,000 Population
Recommended Standards: 0.8 acres/1,000 Population
ATTACHMENT A
III-38
7. Total Park Land
Presently, Renton has 1,197.85 acres of total park land within the city boundaries. Together with another 348.7
acres of public park and open space land within Renton’s PAAs (Potential Annexation Areas), the total amount
of park and open space land within Renton’s planning area is 1,546.55 acres.
NRPA Standard: 15-20 acres/1,000 Population
Existing LOS (Renton): 20.83 acres/1,000 Population
Existing LOS (Planning Area): 14.60 acres/1,000 Population
Recommended LOS Standard: 18.58 acres/1,000 Population
Comments:
While the recommended standard of 18.58 acres per 1,000 population seems high, most of the acreage is in the
open space category. Most of this land is undevelopable as steep hillsides, wetlands or environmentally
sensitive areas.
Specialized Facilities
Below are the recommended levels of service for specialized recreation facilities. In addition to the NRPA
standard and the existing facility ratio, an estimate of the participation level in Renton compared to the average
for the Pacific Northwest is also provided. The existing inventory includes city-owned facilities as well as those
facilities within the city limits owned by other public entities.
1. Ballfields (Includes baseball and softball fields)
NRPA Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population
Existing Participation: Average
Existing Inventory: 20 fields *
Existing Facility Ratio: .9 field per 2,500 population
Recommended Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population
* Small fields were excluded for purposes of evaluation.
2. Football/Soccer Fields
NRPA Standard: 1 field per 10,000 population
Existing Participation: 75 % below average
Existing Inventory: 26 fields
Existing Facility Ratio: .9 field per 3,000 population
Recommended Standard: 1 field per 3,000 population
Comments
Because of the extremely high existing facility ratio and the below average participation rate, the recommended
standard--while substantially above the NRPA standard—is roughly the same as the existing facility ratio.
3. Tennis Courts
NRPA Standard: 1 court per 2,000 population
Existing Participation: 15 % below average
Existing Inventory: 32 courts
Existing Facility Ratio: .9 court per 2,500 population
Recommended Standard: 1 court per 2,500 population
Comments
Based on the substantially above average existing facility ratio, the recommended standard is almost equivalent
to the existing facility ratio.
4. Swimming Pools (indoor)
NRPA Standard: 1 pool per 20,000 population
ATTACHMENT A
III-39
Existing Participation: Average
Existing Inventory: 1 indoor pool
Existing Facility Ratio: .4 per 40,000 population
Recommended Standard: 1 pool per 40,000 population
Comments
5. Walking Trails
Existing Participation: 16% above average
Existing Inventory: 7.5 miles (off-street)
Existing Facility Ratio: .15 miles per 1,000 population
Recommended Standard: .20 miles per 1,000 population
Comments
The recommended standard reflects a strong local interest in walking trails and the fact that the city directed its
efforts to other areas until recent years.
Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan–, 2005-2010
Table 11-4 on the following page shows the projects which may need to be begun over the next six years to
achieve the recommended level of service standards if the forecast growth -- and therefore, demand -- occurs.
The Table also includes potential funding sources for each project, where known.
ATTACHMENT A
III-40
Table 11 - 4
Parks Capital Facilities
2005 - 2010
Park Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Black River Riparian Forest - - - 85 75
Cedar River Ball Field Lighting 200 - - - -
Cedar River Trail Extension 1,000 1,000 - - -
Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion 500 600 - -
Heather Downs Development. 50 750 - - -
Maplewood Community Park Dev. 500 3,000 - 3,000
New Maintenance Facility 5,500 3,000 0 - -
Parks Contingency Plan - - - -
North Highlands Community Center 150 2,000 - - -
Pavilion Improvement - - - - -
Grant Matching Fund 200 200 200 200 200
Carr Road Acquisition
Henry Moses Aquatic Center 1,000 500 1,000 500
Cedar River Trail Extension
Golf Course
Veteran’s Memorial Park
East Renton Plateau Acquisition 2,100
North Highland Redevelopment 1,000 600
TOTAL 7,100 8,950 4,300 2,285 3,775 2,700
This Section to Be Developed
General Fund $2,100 $3,640 1,720 485 815 300
Licenses and Fees*-User Fees 260 260 280 660
Other Taxes 1,000 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300
Grants 750 750 1,000 500 1,000 1,100
Loans 3,000 3,000
Not Funded
TOTAL $7,100 $8,950 4,300 2,285 3,775 2,700
*Includes Parks Mitigation Fees in 2001 and Golf Course fees to fund Golf Course Capital Improvements.
ATTACHMENT A
III-41
PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005-2010
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The City of Renton provides police, municipal court, and jail services and facilities as part of its public safety
responsibilities. Currently, all of these services and facilities are located on the city hall campus.
Level of Service
The police department has a total of 128 employees. Based on Renton's 2004 population of 54,900, the current
level of service of police department employees to population is nearly 2.33 employees per 1,000 residents. The
current level of service for officers is nearly 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents.
With the population of Renton projected to grow to over 61,694 residents by the year 2010, the number of police
department employees will have to increase to 140 to maintain the current level of service. It is also projected by
the police department that with an increase in the general population would come an increase in the number of
class I, II, and III crimes and a related increase in the number of court cases and jail days and in the size of the
average daily jail population. To maintain the current level of service for both the municipal court and the jail
would require an increase in the staff at those facilities.
Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2005-2010
In 1999 the mayors of the five member cities of Valley Communication Board (Auburn, Federal Way, Kent,
Renton, and Tukwila) agreed to build a new 911 Center at a cost of $15,405,519. The Board has been collecting
a surcharge on calls for the past five years for construction of a new facility. The net costs, with an assumption
that a new dispatch system is not needed, will be $12,571,343. Each member city will be responsible for
approximately $2.5 million of the construction costs. As of September 1999, the estimated annual costs of the
debt will be approximately $300,000 over 20 years. In the Capital Facilities Plan this cost is divided evenly
between the Police and Fire Departments.
Table 12-1
Public Safety Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Valley Communications Center*
$150 $150 $150 $150
Total $150 $150 $150 $150
*Cost shown in 2001-2005 Capital Facilities Plan is split between the Public Safety and Fire Functions.
Source of Funds 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Licenses and Fees $150 $150 $150 $150
Total $150 $150 $150 $150
ATTACHMENT A
III-42
FIRE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005-2010
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The Renton Fire Department provides fire protection services from five locations: Station 11 which is the main
fire station across from Historic City Hall and serves the central part of the city; Station 12 which is located in
Renton Highlands and serves the north and east portions of the city; and Station 13 which is located in the
Talbot Hill area and serves the southeast portion of the city. Station 14 is located at Lind & S. 19th Street and
serves the South portion of Renton. Additionally, King County Fire District 25 operationally is part of the
Renton fire protection system; it serves the east portion of the city as well as portions of King County. Figure
13-1 on the following page shows the locations of the fire stations.
Currently Station 11 is staffed by 9 personnel and is equipped with one engine company, one ladder company,
one aid car and one command car. Station 12 is staffed by 5 personnel and is equipped with one engine
company and one aid car. Station 13 is staffed by three personnel and one engine company and one aid unit.
Station 14 is staffed by three personnel and equipped with an engine and 1 aid unit.
The City's water system is also a critical component of fire protection service. Currently all areas of the city are
served by the city water system.
Level of Service
Historically, level of service for fire suppression has been measured in a variety of qualitative and quantitative
terms. However, in the city's Fire Department Master Plan (1987) the primary level of service criteria were
response time and fire flow.
Response time is an important criterion for level of service because there is a direct relationship between how
long a fire burns and the temperatures created by the fire. Eventually temperatures become so high that
"flashover" occurs, a process in which all combustible material in a room or building ignites simultaneously.
Reaching a fire before flashover occurs is an important consideration in fire suppression. Studies have shown
that under normal dispatching procedures fire crews have about four to six minutes to reach a fire before
flashover occurs.
Fire flow is the second criterion for measuring the level of service for fire suppression. Fire flow refers to the
amount of water that is available to spray on a fire and extinguish it. Understandably, water is an essential
element for fire suppression, and the hotter a fire, the more water that must be available to extinguish it.
Determining what is adequate fire flow depends upon a building's type of construction, floor area, and use. For
example, adequate fire flow in the city's water system for a single-family wood frame house is 1,000 gallons per
minute (gpm) whereas adequate fire flow for a shopping center or an industrial park is approximately 4,500
gpm.
The third aspect of establishing level of service is personnel. Having trained firefighters in sufficient numbers is
crucial to putting out a fire safely and efficiently. The number and training of firefighters also must fit with the
department's strategic or tactical approach to fighting fires. The Renton fire department uses an aggressive
attack strategy as opposed to a defensive approach strategy.
ATTACHMENT A
III-43
In its Fire Department Master Plan, the City established the following standards for level of service:
1. Acceptable response time is defined as having the first responding units arrive on the fire scene in five
minutes or less.
2. Acceptable response time is defined as having the second responding units arrive on the fire scene in ten
minutes or less.
3. Acceptable fire flow is defined as having water available to all parts of the city in sufficient quantity and
pressure to extinguish the worst-case fire in an existing or projected land use.
4. Acceptable personnel is defined as having five firefighters on site in first response and ten firefighters
on site in second response.
5. Acceptable personnel is also defined as having sufficient personnel available through mutual aid and
automatic response agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to efficiently and successfully extinguish
the larger and more complex fires in residential, commercial, institutional and industrial buildings.
Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, –2005-2010
With the exception of a few isolated small areas of the city, the "five firefighters in five minutes" level of service
standard is being met. With regard to the "ten firefighters in ten minutes" level of service standard, this standard
is being met in virtually the entire city.
Similarly, the adequate fire flow level of service standard is being met city-wide. Generally, fire flows are
adequate throughout the city, a long-range water system plan is being implemented to upgrade the few low fire
flow areas, and development standards and review procedures are in place which require that necessary fire
suppression measures are made available for all new construction.
Given the population and employment growth projected for the year 2010, it is anticipated that some actions
may be needed over the next six years to maintain the response time level of service standards.
In the east Renton area the agreement with Fire District 25 whereby the city has assumed operational control of
that facility coupled with Station 12 and the water system plan for the area should assure that both response time
and fire flow standards will be maintained.
In the Kennydale area a new station 15 will be constructed over the next six years. The station will be staffed
with three firefighters, seven days a week. This means an additional fifteen firefighters along with the purchase
of equipment. The total project includes the purchase of land, design, construction, hiring personnel, and
purchase of equipment. Presently the northerly portion of the area is within the ten-minute response time
standard but outside of the five-minute response time standard for Station 12. As pointed out in the Fire
Department Master Plan, a new station 15 closer to I-405 and 44th would provide five-minute response time
coverage to the entire area.
Over the next six years, some single family and multi-family growth is projected for the Kennydale/Highlands
area, as is some employment growth. This growth would increase somewhat the importance of providing
improved service to the area in the near term. Given the residential and employment growth projected for the
area after the year 2006, the importance of taking actions to improve the five-minute response time coverage
increase substantially during that period. The solution recommended in the Fire Master Plan was to relocate
Station 12 further to the east. This was accomplished in 2004. In the next six-year planning period, the City
will build Station 15 to better serve the growing Highlands area. This project includes purchasing land, design,
and construction. The City also anticipated improvements to Valley Communications Facilities over the next
six years.
Station 14 was built in the Valley industrial area to help handle the projected employment and multi-family
growth for the area. In addition, there is still a need for a new facility for Station 13 due to its physical
limitations in terms of its ability to accommodate the necessary equipment and personnel to maintain the current
level of service standards as growth occurs. Station 13 was built as a temporary facility, until a current level of
service standards as growth occurs. Station 13 was built as a temporary facility, until a decision was made
whether to build a new station or collocate with Fire District 40. With the decision not to collocate a station, the
need for a new facility is apparent. The project includes design and construction only.
ATTACHMENT A
III-44
Table 13-1
Fire Capital Facilities
2005 - 2010
Fire Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Station 13 990 3,500 - - -
Station 15 350 4,500 - - -
Valley Communications Center 150 150 150 150
Total 1,490 8,150 150 150
This section to be developed
Sources of Funds:
General Fund 1,340 800
Licenses and Fees 150 150 150 150
Bonds
Fire Mitigation Fees
Total 1,490 8,150 150 150
ATTACHMENT A
III-45
Figure 13-1
Existing and Proposed Fire Stations
ATTACHMENT A
III-46
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/ADMINISTRATION CAPITAL FACILITIES
PLAN
2005 - 2010
The Neighborhood Grant Program provides $50,000 to be distributed in small matching grants to organized
associations that from recognized geographic neighborhoods in Renton. The grant projects must be a benefit to
the pubic, create physical improvements, build and enhance a neighborhood feature and be within Renton City
limits.
Funding for infrastructure implementation is provided for the Highlands Subarea Plan and the South Lake
Washington Redevelopment Area. New development in these two areas will require additional transportation
and utility investments needed to stimulate redevelopment.
Table 14-1
Economic Development/Administration Facilities
2005 - 2010
Economic Development Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*
Neighborhood Grants $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50
Highlands Subarea Plan 75
South Lake Washington
Redevelopment
50
Total $175 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50
Sources of Funds:
General Fund $175 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50
Total $175 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50
ATTACHMENT B
IV-1
ATTACHMENT ‘B’
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
GOALS
1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City.
2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development.
3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves.
ATTACHMENT B
IV-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose Statement……………………………………………………………………………
Goals………………………………………………………………………….……………..
I. Natural Areas………………………………………………………………………….….
IV-3
IV-3
IV-3
II. Urban Separators………………………………………………………………………… IV-4
III. Established Residential Neighborhoods………………………………………………… IV-5
IV. New Development in Commercial Districts and New Residential Subdivisions………. IV-7
A. Site Planning……………………………………………………………………. IV-7
B. Gateways………………………………………………………………………...
IV-9
C. Views and Focal Points…………………………………………………………
IV-10
D. Architecture…………………………………………………………………….
IV-10
E. Landscaping……………………………………………………………………..
IV-11
F. Streets, Sidewalks, and Streetscape……………………………………………..
IV-12
G. Signage…………………………………………………………………………..
IV-14
H. Lighting………………………………………………………………………….
IV-14
I. Urban Center……………………………………………………………………..
IV-15
ATTACHMENT B
IV-3
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Community Design Element is to establish
policies that set standards for high quality development, improve the aesthetics and
functionality of existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, and guide the
development of new neighborhoods that are part of a better community.
Recognizing that the exceptional quality of life in Renton is dependent upon a strong
local economy, these policies are intended to further that economic health. They are
based on the belief that a positive image and high quality development attracts more of
the same, so that high standards can lead to increased revenue.
Goals:
1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City,
2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development, and
3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves.
Discussion:
The objectives and policies adopted to meet these goals address issues related to both
the natural and built environment such as: how the physical organization of
development can create a desirable place to live; the importance of view protection;
ways to improve the streetscape; principles of vegetation preservation, selection, and
maintenance; principles of architectural and urban design; and the function of urban
separators.
I. Natural Areas
Summary: Natural areas are an important component of the community. The purpose
of including natural areas in the Community Design Element is not so that natural
areas will be “designed,” but rather so that the built environment can be shaped in a
manner that takes into consideration the natural environment.
The Community Design Natural Areas objectives are intended to address:
• Urban growth in relation to natural areas,
• Protection and enhancement of natural areas, and
• Public access to natural areas.
Objective CD-A: The City's unique natural features, including land form, vegetation,
lakeshore, river, creeks and streams, and wetlands should be protected and enhanced as
opportunities arise.
Policy CD-1: Integrate development into natural areas by clustering development
and/or adjusting site plans to preserve wetlands, steep slopes, and notable stands of
trees or other vegetation. Natural features should function as site amenities. Use
ATTACHMENT B
IV-4
incentives such as flexible lot size and configuration to encourage preservation and
add amenity value.
Policy CD-2: During development, effort should be made to preserve watercourses as
open channels.
Policy CD-3: Site design should maximize public access to and create opportunities
for use of shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a lake, river, stream, or wetland
where such access would not jeopardize habitats and other environmental attributes of
the water body.
Policy CD-4: Development review of proposed projects should identify opportunities
for increasing public access to Lake Washington, the Cedar River, wetlands, streams,
and creeks in the City.
Policy CD-5: Renton’s public and private open space should be increased in size
through acquisition of additional land or dedication of Native Growth Protection Area
easements.
Policy CD-6: Public open space acquisition should be consistent with the Long Range
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan Policy.
II. Urban Separators
Summary: Urban Separators are low-density residential areas, intended to establish
edges between Renton and other communities. These transition areas will become
more important as urban areas intensify.
In some areas, natural features such as stream courses, landform, and vegetation
already serve as buffers.
These policies are implemented by the Resource Conservation and Residential 1
zoning designations. The Urban Separator policies should be considered along with
Residential Low Density policies.
Objective CD-B: Designate low-density residential and resource areas as Urban
Separators to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent
communities, and to define Renton’s boundaries.
Policy CD-7. : The function of Urban Separators should be to:
a. reinforce Reinforce the character of the City,
b. establish Establish clear boundaries between the City and other communities,
c. Separate high-density intensity urban land uses from low-density intensity uses
and resource lands, and
d. Protect environmentally sensitive andor critical areas.
ATTACHMENT B
IV-5
Policy CD-8. : Locational criteria should consider the following types of lands for
designation as Urban Separators:
a. Individual and interconnecting natural features, critical areas, public and private
open space and water features.
b. Existing and proposed individual and interconnecting parks, and agricultural
areas.
c. Areas that provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between
urban communities.
III. Established Residential Neighborhoods
Summary: The policies included in this section of the Community Design Element are
intended to guide construction of new, small-scale infill residential development and
modifications to existing residential and commercial structures.
Objective CD-C: Promote re-investment in and upgrade of existing residential
neighborhoods through redevelopment of small, underutilized parcels with infill
development, modification and alteration of older housing stock, and improvements to
streets and sidewalks to increase property values.
Policy CD-9. : Support modification of existing commercial and residential
structures and site improvements that implement the current land use policies as re-
investment occurs in neighborhoods. Such modifications may consist of parking lot
design, landscaping renovation, new coordinated signage, and site plan/building
alterations that update structures to contemporary standards.
Policy CD-10. : Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along streets in
established neighborhoods, where sidewalks have not been previously constructed.
Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian
traffic and, where practical, match existing sidewalks.
Policy-CD-11. : Vacant property should be maintained (landscaped, pruned, mowed,
and litter removed) or screened to prevent adverse visual, economic, and health/safety
impacts on the surrounding area.
Policy CD-12. : Infill development, defined as new short plats of nine or fewer lots,
should be encouraged in order to add variety, updated housing stock, and new increase
vitality to of neighborhoods.
Policy CD-13. : Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of
established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and
/or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development
should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures,
vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale
of existing areas.
ATTACHMENT B
IV-6
Policy CD-13.1: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards
and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions
of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to
facilitate increased density.
Policy CD-13.2: Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on
newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density.
Policy CD-14. : Architecture of new structures in established areas should be visually
compatible with other structures on the site and with adjacent development.
Visual compatibility should be evaluated using the following criteria:
a. Where there are differences in height (e.g., new two-story development
adjacent to single-story structures), the architecture of the new structure should
include details and elements of design such as window treatment, roof type,
entries, or porches that reduce the visual mass of the structure.
b. Garages, whether attached or detached, should be constructed using the same
pattern of development established in the vicinity.
c.Structures should have entries, windows, and doors located to maintain privacy
in neighboring yards and buildings.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
ATTACHMENT B
IV-7
IV. New Development in Commercial Districts and New Residential Subdivisions
Summary: Objectives and polices that address new commercial infill and residential
subdivision development are intended to serve multiple purposes. First, concerns
about new development “fitting in” to established areas of Renton have resulted in an
increased awareness that site design and architecture, when planned to be compatible
with the context of the neighborhood or commercial area, can make the “fit” of the
new project more comfortable.
Second, these objectives and policies provide assistance to project proponents so when
planning new development for Renton; , they can be guided in their choices.
Third, city officials, who must make decisions regarding new projects, can use these
objectives and policies to guide their review of project proposals.
Elements of new development represented by objectives and policies in this section
include:
A. Site planning
B. Gateways
C. Views and focal points
D. Architecture
E. Landscaping
F. Streets, sidewalks, and streetscape
G. Signs
H. Lighting
I. Urban Center
A. Site Planning
Summary: Site planning is the art and science of arranging structures, open space,
and non-structural elements on land in a functional way so that the purpose of the
development can be met, while keeping those elements in harmony with each other
and with the context of the project.
Objective CD-D: New neighborhood development patterns should be consistent with
Renton’s established neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network.
Policy CD-15. : Land should be subdivided into blocks sized so that walking
distances are minimized and convenient routes between destination points are
available.
Policy CD-16. ; During land division, all lots should front streets or parks.
Discourage single tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. Where a single-tier
plat is the only viable alternative due to land configuration, significant environmental
constraints, or location on a principal arterial, additional design features such as a
larger setbacks, additional landscaping, or review of fencing should be required.
a. Evaluation of land configuration should consider whether a different layout of
streets or provision of alleys is physically possible and could eliminate the need
for a single-tier plat.
ATTACHMENT B
IV-8
b. Evaluation of environmental constraints should consider whether the location
and extent of critical areas prevents a standard plat design.
c. Review of fencing should ensure that the development does not “turn its back”
to public areas.
Policy CD-17. : Development should be designed (e.g. site layout, building
orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity
areas) to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to
maximize density as a first consideration.
Policy CD-18. : Projects should only be approved at the upper end of density ranges
when the following criteria are fully addressed in project level submission.
a. Trees are retained, relocated, or planted to create sufficient vegetative cover to
provide a landscape amenity, shade, and high quality-walking environment in
an urban context.
b. Lot size/configuration and lot coverage is sufficient to provide private
recreation/outdoor space for each resulting lot.
c. Structures can be sited so that entry, window, and door locations create and
maintain privacy on adjoining yards and buildings. Architectural and
landscape design should:
• Prevent window and door openings looking directly into another
structure,
• Prevent over-reliance on fencing, or
• Prevent projections of building elements into required setbacks in a
pattern that reduces provision of light, visual separation, and/or require
variances of or modification of standards.
Density may be reduced within the allowed range to bring projects into compliance
with these criteria.
Policy CD-19. : During development, significant trees, either individually or in
stands, should be preserved, replaced, or as a last option, relocated.
Policy CD-20. : Development should be visually and acoustically buffered from ad-
jacent freeways.
Policy CD-21. : Development should have buildings oriented toward the street or a
common area rather than toward parking lots.
Policy CD-22: When appropriate, due to scale, use, or location, on-site open space
and recreational facilities in developments should be required.
Policy CD-23. : Developments should be designed so that public access to and use of
parks, open space, or shorelines, is available where such access would not jeopardize
the environmental attributes of the area.
Policy CD-24. : Site design of development should relate, connect, and continue
design quality and site function from parcel to parcel.
ATTACHMENT B
IV-9
Policy CD-25. : Site design should address the effects of light, glare, noise,
vegetation removal, and traffic in residential areas. Overall development densities
may be reduced within the allowed density range to mitigate potential adverse impacts.
Policy CD-26. : Streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian or bike paths should be arranged
as an interconnecting network. The useDead-end streets and of cul-de-sacs should be
discouraged. A grid or “flexible grid” pattern of streets and pathways, with a
hierarchy of widths and corresponding traffic volumes, should be used.
Policy CD-27. : New streets should be designed to provide convenient access and a
choice of routes between homes and parks, schools, shopping, and other community
destinations.
Policy CD-28. : Non-residential development should have site plans that provide street
access from a principal arterial, consolidate access points to existing streets, and have
internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access.
Policy CD-29. : In mixed-use developments with ground-floor retail uses, residential
parking areas should not conflict with pedestrian and vehicular access to the retail
component of the project.
Policy CD-30. : If transit service is available, parking requirements may be reduced
or shared parking serving multiple developments may be allowed.
Policy CD-31. : In mixed-use developments, residential uses should be connected to
other uses through design features such as pedestrian walkways and common open
space.
Policy CD-32. : Neighborhoods should have human-scale features, such as pedestrian
pathways and public spaces (e.g. parks or plazas) that have discernible edges, entries
and borders.
B. Gateways
Summary: Community identity can be effectively communicated at City and
district/neighborhood entries through the designation of these areas as “gateways.”
Gateways are a means to call attention to the entrance and bid welcome to the City or a
more specific geographic area and bid welcome.
Objective CD-E: Highlight entrances to the City through the use of the “Gateways”
designation. Implementing code for Objective CD-E and policies CD-33, 34, and 35
will be put in place within five (5) years from the date of adoption of the GMA update.
Policy CD-33. : Identify primary and secondary gateways to the City and develop
them as opportunities arise.
Policy CD-34. : The level of development intensity at a gateway should be used, with
location, to determine whether it is a primary or secondary gateway.
Policy CD-35. : Each gateway should have unique, identifiable design treatment in
terms of landscaping, building design, signage, street furniture, paving, and street
ATTACHMENT B
IV-10
width. Special consideration of gateway function should be demonstrated through
design of these elements.
C. Views and Focal Points
Summary: Views are a resource that should be preserved for public access to the
greatest extent possible. Focal points should be created and used to enhance the
community.
Objective CD-F: Protect and enhance public views of distinctive features from public
streets and other focal points within the City and the surrounding area. Implementing
code for Objective CD-F and Policies CD-36, CD-37, CD-38, CD-39 will be put in
place within a five (5) year period from the date of adoption of the GMA update.
Policy CD-36. : Scenic views and view corridors along roadways in the City should
be identified and preserved through application of development standards.
Policy CD-37. : Access from public roadways to views of features of distinction
should be enhanced through the development of public viewpoints where appropriate.
Policy CD-38. : Neighborhood identity should be established by featuring views,
highlighting landmarks, or creating focal points of distinction.
Policy CD-39. : Focal points should have a combination of public areas, such as
parks or plazas; architectural features, such as towers, outstanding building design,
transit stops, or outdoor eating areas; and landscaped areas. These features should be
connected to pedestrian pathways.
D. Architecture
Summary: It is not the intent of these policies to dictate the architectural style of
structures in the City of Renton. The Community Design architectural policies are
intended to encourage design of structures that fit well into the neighborhood, reflect
the physical character of Renton, mitigate potential negative impacts of development,
and function well in meeting the needs of both the building occupant and the
community.
Objective CD-G: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community
aesthetic.
Policy CD-40. : Structures should be designed (e.g. building height, orientation,
materials, color and bulk;) to mitigate potential adverse impacts, such as glare or
shadows on adjacent less intense land uses and transportation corridors.
Policy CD-41. : Rooftops that can be seen from higher elevations, taller buildings,
and public streets, parks, or open space should be designed to hide mechanical
equipment and to incorporate high-quality roofing materials.
ATTACHMENT B
IV-11
Policy CD-42. : Design characteristics in larger, new developments or individual
building complexes should contribute to neighborhood and/or district identity.
Objective CD-H: Ensure that structures built in residential areas are consistent with
the City’s adopted land use vision and Purpose Statements for each Land Use
Designation found in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Residential Policies.
Objective CD-I: New commercial buildings should be architecturally compatible
with their surroundings in terms of their bulk and scale, exterior materials, and color
when existing development is consistent with the adopted land use vision and Purpose
Statements for each Commercial and Centers Designation in the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element, Center and Commercial Policies.
Policy CD-43. : A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged
as long as site functions connect to adjacent development. Iand innovative use of
building materials and finishes should be promoted.
Policy CD-44. : Development should provide appropriate landscaping and façade
treatment when located along designated City arterials or adjacent to less intense
developments in order to mitigate potentially adverse visual or other impacts.
E. Landscaping
Summary: Landscaping is a key element of the City. It can be used to create
distinctive character for developments, neighborhoods and along city streets; to frame
views; to block unsightly views; or mitigate the scale of large buildings. It can also be
used to reduce traffic noise levels and the effects of pollution.
Objective CD-J-: The City of Renton should adopt a citywide landscape plan that
furthers the aesthetic goal of the City and provides guidance for future development
and infrastructure improvements. Implementing code for Objective CD-J and Policies
CD-45, CD-46 and CD-48 will be put in place within a five (5) year period from the
date of adoption of the GMA update.
Policy CD-45. : Existing mature vegetation and distinctive trees should be retained
and protected in developments.
Policy CD-46. : A comprehensive landscape architectural plan for the City should be
developed. The plan should include recommendations for preferred street and
landscape trees.
Policy CD-47. : Landscape plans should take into consideration the potential impact
of mature vegetation on significant views so that future removal of view-blocking trees
will not be necessary.
Policy CD-48. : A comprehensive landscape plan for the City should include areas
such as those adjacent to freeways and major highways and other public rights-of-way.
The installation of this landscaping should be encouraged.
Policy CD-49. : Citywide development standards, for landscape design, installation,
and maintenance should be developed.
ATTACHMENT B
IV-12
Policy CD-50. : Trees should be planted along residential streets, in parking lots
requiring landscaping, and in other pervious areas as the opportunity arises. Trees
should be retained whenever possible and maintained using Best Management
Practices as appropriate for each type.
Policy CD-51. : Landscaping is encouraged, and may be required, in parking areas to
improve their appearance and to increase drainage control.
Policy CD-52. : Landscape and surface water drainage plans should be coordinated
to maximize percolation of surface water and minimize runoff from the site.
Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses, including
residential subdivisions, should include landscape plans.
Policy CD-53. : Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include
public entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater detention ponds, and all common
areas.
Policy CD-54. : Residential subdivisions and multi-family residential projects should
include planting of street trees according to an adopted citywide landscape plan.
Policy CD-55. : Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in
development projects, including entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater
retention/detention ponds, and common areas.
Policy CD-56. : Surface water retention/detention ponds should be landscaped
appropriately for the location of the facility.
F. Streets, Sidewalks, and Streetscape
Objective CD-L: Promote development of attractive, walkable neighborhoods and
shopping areas by ensuring that streets are safe, convenient, and pleasant for
pedestrians.
Policy CD-57. : The design of pedestrian–oriented environments should address
safety as a first priority. Safety measures should include generous separation of cars
and pedestrians, reducing the number of curb cuts and driveways, having numerous,
well-marked street crossings, and providing street and sidewalk lighting.
Policy CD-58. : Aesthetic improvements along street frontages should be provided,
especially for properties abutting major streets and boulevards. Incentives should be
provided for the inclusion of streetscape amenities including: landscaping, public art,
street furniture, paving, signs, and planting strips in developing and redeveloping
areas.
Objective CD-M: Develop a system of residential streets, sidewalks, and alleys that
serve both vehicles and pedestrians.
Policy CD-59. : A citywide street and sidewalk system should provide linkages
within and between neighborhoods. Such system should not unduly increase pass-
ATTACHMENT B
IV-13
through traffic, but should create a continuous, efficient, interconnected network of
roads and pathways throughout the City.
Policy CD-60. : Criteria should be developed to locate pedestrian and bicycle
connections in the City. Criteria should consider:
a) Linking residential areas with employment and commercial areas;
b) Providing access along arterials;
c) Providing access within residential areas;
d) Filling gaps in the existing sidewalk system where appropriate; and
e) Providing access through open spaces and building entries to shorten walking
distances.
Policy CD-61. : Residential streets should be constructed to the narrowest widths
(distance from curb to curb) feasible without impeding emergency vehicle access.
Policy CD-62. : Landscaped parking strips should be considered for use as a safety
buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles along arterials and collector streets.
Policy CD-63. : Intersections should be designed to minimize pedestrian crossing
distance and increase safety for disabled pedestrians.
Policy CD-64. : Evaluate existing intersections of arterial roadways for opportunities
to create focal points, if such focal points do not reduce vehicular or pedestrian safety.
Policy CD-65. : To visually improve the streetscape, increase the safety of perimeter
sidewalks, and facilitate off-street parking, construction of alleys providing rear access
to service entries and garages should be encouraged. Alleys are preferred in small-lot
subdivisions to provide higher quality site-planningsite planning that allows garage
access from the rear and reduces curb cuts and building mass on narrow lots.
Policy CD-66. : Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along residential
streets. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate
pedestrian traffic.
Policy CD-67. : Street trees should be used to reinforce visual corridors along major
boulevards and streets.
Policy CD-68. : Street trees should be protected. If removal is necessary for
municipal purposes such as infrastructure improvements or maintenance, trees should
be replaced with equivalent the same size and varietytype. Upon adoption of citywide
standards, street trees should be upgraded consistent with those standards.
Policy CD-69. : Appearance of parking lots should be improved by screening
through appropriate combinations of landscaping, fencing, and berms.
Policy CD-70. : Structural supports for overhead traffic signals should be designed to
diminish visual impacts.
Policy CD-71. : All utility lines should be placed underground.
G. Signage
ATTACHMENT B
IV-14
Objective CD-N: Commercial signs in Renton should be regulated by citywide
standards.
Policy CD-72: : Sign regulations should direct the type, size, design, and placement
of signs in order to ensure reasonable aesthetic and safety considerations.
Policy CD-73. : All bBillboards with moving partsthat are out of scale with
surrounding buildings and uses, should be eliminatedremoved.
Policy CD-74. : All bulky and unusually large or tall signs should be eliminated.
Policy CD-75. : Sign placement should be limited to on-site locations.
Policy CD-76. : Signs should be regulated as an integral part of architectural design.
In general, signs should be compatible with the rest of the building and site design.
Policy CD-77. : Consolidate information for mixed-use development to reduce the
number of signs.
Policy CD-78. : Locate signage to reduce light and glare impacts to residential areas.
Policy CD-79. : Interpretive and directional signs for major landmarks,
neighborhoods, and viewpoints should be established to enhance community identity.
H. Lighting
Objective CD-O: Lighting systems in public rights-of-way should be provided to
improve safety, aid in direction finding, and provide information for commercial and
other business purposes. Excess lighting beyond what is necessary should be avoided.
Policy CD-80. : All exterior lighting should be focused and directed away from
adjacent properties and wildlife habitat to prevent spill-overspillover or glare.
Policy CD-81. : Lighting should be used as one means to improve the visual
identification of residences and businesses.
Policy CD-82. : Lighting fixtures should be attractively designed to complement the
architecture of a development, the site, and adjacent buildings.
Policy CD-83. Lighting within commercial and public areas should be located and
designed to enhance security and encourage nighttime use by pedestrians.
I. Urban Center
Note: Community Design policies specifically applicable to the Urban Center are
located in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 1 of 76
ATTACHMENT ‘C’
LAND USE ELEMENT
GOALS
1. Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed growth
forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through
implementation of the Growth Management Act.
2. Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents on the ground and for
aircraft occupants.
3. Actively pursuePromote annexationsannexation where and when it is in the best
interest of Renton.
4. Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately
recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites.
5. Pursue the transition of non-conforming uses and structures to encourage more
conforming uses and development patterns.
6. Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi-public service needs of
present and future employees.
7. Maintain the City’s agricultural and mining resources as part of Renton’s cultural
history.
87. Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that:
a) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity;
b) Are walkable places where people can live, shop, play, and get to work
without always having to drive;
c) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and
make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure;
d) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and
lifestyle;
e) Are varied or unique in character;
f) Support “grid” and “flexible grid” street and pathway patterns where
appropriate;
g) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live;
h) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and
i) Provide a sense of home.
98. Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office, office, and
residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 2 of 76
109. Support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for
new commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use
residential uses that enhance the City’s employment and tax base along arterial
boulevards and in designated development areas.
11.10 Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial, high technology, office, and
commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a
strengthening of Renton’s employment base.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 3 of 76
I. REGIONAL GROWTH POLICIES
Goal: Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed
growth forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through
implementation of the Growth Management Act.
Discussion: “Capacity” is the room for growth provided by the plan. Targets are the
politically determined share of growth assigned to each community in the region through
the Countywide Planning Policies. Forecasts are the expected growth in the City based on
regional employment and population modeling. The objective of this plan is to
appropriately analyze regionally generated estimates of both forecast growth and targets
and align those estimates with Renton’s desire for economic growth and development.
Renton has the local land use authority to provide sufficient capacity to meet and exceed
both targets and forecast growth. Excess capacity can encourage result in sprawl and
discourage redevelopment of inefficient or out-dated land uses, while insufficient
capacity can make itdevelopment more difficult for the market to workdue to high land
cost. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan should provide sufficient
direction to achieve a balance between excessive and insufficient capacity, in order to
avoid difficulty in implementing the Plan.
Responsibility for implementing the objectives and policies of the Regional Growth
section of this plan lies primarily with the City of Renton.
Objective LU-A: Plan for future urban development in the Renton Urban Growth Area
(UGA) including the existing City and the unincorporated areas identified in Renton’s
Potential Annexation Areas (PAA).
Policy LU-1. Continue to refine the boundary of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) in
cooperation with King County, based on the following criteria:
1) The UGA provides adequate land capacity for forecast growth;
2) Lands within the UGA are appropriate for urban development; and
3) Urban levels of service are required for existing and proposed land uses.
Policy LU-2. Designate Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) as those portions of
unincorporated King County outside the existing City limits, but within the Urban
Growth Area, where:
1) Renton can logically provide urban services over the planning period;
2) Land use patterns support implementation of Renton’s Urban Center objectives; and
3) Development meets overall standards for quality identified for city neighborhoods.
Policy LU-3. Provide for land use planning and an overall growth strategy for both the
City and land in the designated PAA as part of Renton’s regional growth policies.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 4 of 76
Discussion: The Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies
establish urban growth areas where urban levels of growth will occur within the
subsequent 21-year period. These areas include existing cities and unincorporated areas.
Within the Urban Growth Area, the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) is designated for
future municipal expansion and governance. Policies guiding annexation and provision
of services within the PAA are also located in the annexation portion of the Land Use
Element; Utilities Element; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Element and
Transportation Element.
Objective LU-B: Evaluate and implement growth targets consistent with the Growth
Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies.
Policy LU-4. Adopt the following growth targets for the period from 2001 to 2022,
consistent with the targets adopted for the region by the Growth Management Planning
Council for the 2002 Renton City limits and Potential Annexation Areas:
1) City of Renton Housing:
6,198 units
2) City of Renton Jobs:
27,597 jobs
3) Potential Annexation Area Housing
1,976 units
4) Potential Annexation Area Jobs:
458 jobs
Policy LU-5. Amend growth targets as annexation occurs to transfer a proportionate share of
Potential Annexation Area targets into Renton’s targets.
Policy LU-6. Monitor targets through the City’s Outcome Management evaluation process.
Objective LU-C: Ensure sufficient land capacity to accommodate forecast housing and
job growth and targets mandated by the Growth Management Act for the next twenty-one
years (2001-2022).
Policy LU-7. Plan for residential and employment growth based on growth targets
established in the Countywide Planning Policies, as a minimum. (See Housing Element
Goals and Capacity section and Capital Facilities Element, Policy CFP-1 and Growth
Projection section.
Policy LU-8. Provide sufficient land, appropriately zoned, so capacity exceeds targets by
at least twenty percent (20%).
Policy LU-9. Encourage infill development as a means to increase capacity for single-
family units within the existing city limits.
Policy LU-10. Use buildable lands data and market analysis to establish adopted
capacity for either jobs or housing within each adopted zoning classification.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 5 of 76
Policy LU-11. Minimum density requirements shall be established to ensure that land
development practices result in an average development density in each land use
designation sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and create greater efficiency in the
provision of urban services.
Policy LU-12. Minimum density requirements should:
1) Be based on net densityland area;
2) Be required in residential zones, with the exception of the Resource Conservation,
Residential 1, and Residential 4 zones,
1)Not be applied to lots created after 1995 of less than one-half acre in size;
2)3) Not be required of individual portions or lots within the a project;
4) May be reduced due to lot configuration, lack of access, or physical constraints;
and
5) Not be applied to construction of a single dwelling unit on a pre-existing legal lot
or renovation of existing structures.
Policy LU-13. Phasing, shadow-platting, or land reserves should be used to ensure that
minimum density can eventually be achieved within proposed developments. Adequate
access to potential future development on the site must be ensured. Proposed
development should not preclude future additional development.
Policy LU-14. Parking should not be considered as a land reserve for future
development, except within the Urban Center.
Policy LU-15. Amend capacity estimates as annexation and re-zonings occur.
Objective LU-D: Maintain a high ratio of jobs to housing in Renton.
Policy LU-16. Future residential and employment growth within Renton's planning area
should meet the goal of 2 two jobs perfor each 1 housing unit.
Policy LU-17. Sufficient quantities of land should be designated to accommodate the
desired single family/multi-family mix outside the Urban Center, and provide for
commercial and industrial uses necessary to provide for expected job growth.
Policy LU-18. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to
work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the
design, size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with
residential uses.
Discussion: The ratio of new jobs to new housing units will affect the future character of
the City. Renton currently is an employment center with a high jobs/housing ratio
characterized by a high level of day-timedaytime activity, a high demand for
infrastructure, a high tax base, and a high level volume of commuter traffic.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
ATTACHMENT C
Page 6 of 76
Renton's current ratio of jobs to housing units is roughly 2.1 jobs per 1 housing unit.
Within King County, the overall ratio is about 1.5 jobs per 1 housing unit.
Forecasts from the Puget Sound Regional Council indicate that there will be an even
greater number of new jobs within Renton than new housing over the next 20 years. This
will increase the discrepancy between jobs and housing units within the City. However,
the number of housing units in the unincorporated areas within Renton's Potential
Annexation Area are is expected to grow faster than jobs so that the balance of jobs to
housing will be maintained within the City limits and the Potential Annexation Areas.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 7 of 76
II. AIRPORT
AIRPORT COMPATIBLE LAND USE POLICIES
Goal: Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents on the ground and
for aircraft occupants.
Discussion: In order to meet a mandate of the Growth Management Act, the City of
Renton has developed a set of objectives and policies to address land use compatibility
between the Renton Municipal Airport and an area of the City known as the Airport
Influence Area (see RMC 4-3-020). Renton’s approach to planning for minimization of
risk associated with potential aviation incidents was to analyze four primary categories of
aviation operations in relation to land use compatibility. The categories used are, 1)
general aviation safety, 2) airspace protection, 3) aviation noise, and 4) overflight. A
“compatibility objective” was developed for each, with strategies to meet the objective,
and measurement criteria to ensure that the objective is met. The objectives and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan, with the implementation included in the Development
Regulations (RMC 4-3-020) meet the state requirement of GMA and the goal of this
section.
Responsibility for implementing the Airport Compatible Land Use objectives and policies
is shared by the City of Renton, proponents of projects within the Airport Influence Area,
and the aviation community.
General Aviation Safety
Objective LU-E: Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents.
Policy LU-19. Adopt an airport compatible land use program for the Renton Airport
Influence Area, including an Airport Influence Area Map.
Policy LU-20. Develop performance-based criteria for land use compatibility with
aviation activity.
Policy LU-21. In the Airport Influence Area, adopt use restrictions, as appropriate, that
meet or exceed basic aviation safety considerations.
Airspace Protection
Objective LU-F: Reduce obstacles to aviation in proximity to Renton Municipal
Airport.
Policy LU-22. Require that submittal requirements for proposed land use actions
disclose potential conflicts with airspace.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 8 of 76
Policy LU-23. Provide maximum protection to Renton airspace from obstructions to
aviation.
Policy LU-24. Prohibit buildings, structures, or other objects from being constructed or
altered so as to project or otherwise penetrate the airspace surfaces, except as necessary
and incidental to airport operations.
Aviation Noise
Objective LU-G: Address impacts of aviation noise that is at a level deemed to be a
health hazard or disruptive of noise-sensitive activities.
Policy LU-25. Prohibit the location of noise-sensitive land uses from areas of high noise
levels, defined by the 65 DNL (or higher) noise contour of the Renton Municipal Airport.
Policy LU-26. Within the Airport Influence Area require disclosure notice for potential
negative impacts from aviation operation and noise, unless mitigated by other measures.
Policy LU-27. Residential use and/or density of new structures should be limited, within
the Runway Protection Zone and the Runway Sideline Zone to reduce negative impacts
on residents from aviation operation noise. Implementing code will be put in place
within three years of the adoption date of the 2004 Update.by November 2007.
Policy LU-28. Non-residential use and/or intensity may be limited, if such uses are
deemed to be noise sensitive, to reduce negative impacts on users from aviation operation
noise.
Policy LU-29. Approval of residential land use or other land uses where noise-sensitive
activities may occur should require dedication of avigation easements and use of acoustic
materials for structures.
Policy LU-30. Require master planning of land to increase land use compatibility
through sound attenuation in the environment and techniques such as:
• Place uses with highest sensitivity to noise at greater distances, in consideration
of the factor of distance from the source.
• Consider creation of micro-climates to utilize mitigating meteorological
conditions (i.e. air temperature, wind direction and velocity).
• Create soft ground surfaces, such as vegetative ground cover, rather than hard
surfaces.
• Provide at appropriate heights, structures, terrain, or other barriers to provide
attenuation of sound.
Overflight
Objective LU-H: In the Airport Influence Area, address impacts of overflight that are
disruptive.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 9 of 76
Policy LU-31. At the time of land use approval (i.e. subdivision of land) avigation
easements should be granted to the City in areas of Renton subject to negative aircraft
overflight impacts.
Policy LU-32. At the time of land use approval (i.e. subdivision of land) deed notices
should be recorded in areas of Renton subject to negative aircraft overflight impacts.
Policy LU-33. The City should establish a presence on noise-abatement review
committees, or similar forums, and request notification of noise-abatement procedures at
nearby airports that may have aircraft that impact Renton.
Policy LU-34. The City should provide information to Renton citizens of noise
complaint procedures to follow for reporting negative impacts from overflights associated
with not only Renton Airport, but also Seattle Tacoma International Airport and King
County International Airport. Implementing code will be put in place within three years
of the adoption date of GMA update.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 10 of 76
III. ANNEXATIONS
Goal: Actively pursue annexations.
Discussion: The growth of the City through annexation is expected to continue
throughout the planning cycle. The policies in this section are intended to guide the
annexation process. The City recognizes that fiscal impacts are is only one of many
criteria to be evaluated, and must be balanced with other annexation policy goals, such as
transition to urban land use, protection of sensitive areas, provision of public service,
governmental structure, provision of infrastructure, aquifer protection, and community
identity.
Responsibility for implementing annexation objectives and the policies lies primarily with
the City of Renton.
Objective LU-I: Support annexation of county areas that are identified as being within
the City of Renton’s Potential Annexation Area and can be efficiently provided with
infrastructure and City services, are urban separators, or have environmental constraints.
Policy LU-35. The City will continue to recognize that it has an inherent interest in
future land use decisions affecting its Potential Annexation Area.
Policy LU-36. Encourage annexation where the availability of infrastructure and
services allow for the development of urban densities. Renton should be the primary
service provider of urban infrastructure and public services in its Potential Annexation
Area, provided that the City can offer such services in an efficient and cost-effective
manner.
Policy LU-37. The highest priority areas for annexation to the City of Renton should be
those contiguous with the boundaries of the City such as:
1) Peninsulas and islands of unincorporated land where Renton is the logical service
provider;
2) Neighborhoods where municipal services have already been extended;
3) Lands subject to development pressure that might benefit from City Development
Standards;
4) Developed areas where urban services are needed to correct degradation of natural
resources, such as aquifer recharge areas;
5) Lands that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive plan, zoning,
and subdivision regulations; and
6) Developed areas where Renton is able to provide basic urban services and local
governance to an existing population.
Objective LU-J: Promote annexations that would maintain the quality of life in the re-
sultant City of Renton, making the City a good place to work, live, work play, shop, and
raise families.
Policy LU-38. Support annexations that would result in future improvements to City
services or eliminate duplication by service providers. Services include water, sanitary
ATTACHMENT C
Page 11 of 76
sewer, storm water drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation, park and open space,
library, and public safety.
Policy LU-39. Support annexations that complement the jobs and housing goals adopted
in the Regional Growth Strategy.
Policy LU-40. Support annexations that would simplify governmental structure by
consolidating multiple services under a single or reduced number of service providers.
Policy LU-41. Promote annexations of developed areas with a residential population
already using City services or impacting City infrastructure.
Policy LU-42. Support annexations of lower density areas where it would protect natural
resources or provide urban separator areas.
Objective LU-K: Create city boundaries through annexations that facilitate the efficient
delivery of emergency and public services.
Policy LU-43. The proposed annexation boundary should be defined by the following
characteristics:
1) Annexation of territory that is adjacent to the existing City limits; in general, the more
land adjacent to the City the more favorable the annexation;
2) Inclusion of unincorporated islands and peninsulas;
3) Use of natural or manmade boundaries that are readily identifiable in the field, such
as wetlands, waterways, ridges, park property, roads/freeways, and railroads;
4) Inclusion/exclusion of an entire neighborhood, rather than dividing portions of the
neighborhood between City and County jurisdictions; and
5) Inclusion of natural corridors either as greenbelts or urban separators between the
City and adjacent jurisdictions.
Policy LU-44. Existing land uses, and development, and or redevelopment potential
should be considered when evaluating a proposed annexation.
Policy LU-45. Commercial uses that do not conform to Renton’s land use plan should be
encouraged to transition into conforming uses or to relocate to areas with compatible land
use designations. Illegal uses not listed under King County zoning should be required to
cease and desist upon annexation.
Policy LU-46. Annexation proposals should include areas that would result in City
control over land uses along major entrance corridors to the City (“Gateways”).
Policy LU-47. Boundaries of individual annexations will not be reconsidered to
exclude reluctant property owners, if the annexation is consistent with land use,
environmental protection policies, and the efficient delivery of services.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 12 of 76
Objective LU-L: Protect the environmental quality of Renton by annexing lands where
future development and land use activity could otherwise adversely impact natural and
urban systems.
Policy LU-48. Shoreline Master Program land use designations, including those for
associated wetlands, should be established during the annexation process.
Policy LU-49. Annexations should be pursued in areas that lie within existing, emerging,
or prospective aquifer recharge zones, that currently or potentially supply domestic water
to the City and are within Renton’s Potential Annexation Area.
Policy LU-50. Zoning should be applied to areas for purposes of resource protection,
when appropriate, during the annexation process.
Objective LU-M: Promote a regional approach for development review through the use
of interlocal agreements to ensure that land development policies in King County are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies or otherand City of Renton development
standards. This policy should be implemented within five years of the adoption date of
the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-51. Urban development within Renton’s Potential Annexation Area should
not occur without annexation unless there is an interlocal agreement with King County
defining land use, zoning, annexation phasing, urban services, street and other design
standards, and impact mitigation requirements.
Policy LU-52. Long-range planning and the development of capital improvement
programs for transportation, storm water, water, and sewer services should be
coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions, special districts, and King County.
Policy LU-53. Interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions should be pursued to
develop solutions to regional concerns including, but not limited to water, sanitary sewer,
storm water drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation, park and open space,
development review, and public safety.
Objective LU-N: Provide full and complete evaluation of annexation proposals by
relevant departments and divisions upon the submission of the annexation proposal.
Policy LU-54. Appropriate zoning districts should be designated for property in an
annexation proposal. Zoning in the annexation territory should be consistent with the
comprehensive plan land use designations.
Policy LU-55. Larger annexations should be encouraged, when appropriate, in order to
realize efficiencies in the use of City resources.
Policy LU-56. Annexations should be expanded if they include areas surrounded by the
City on three or more sides or if they include properties with recorded covenants to
annex.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 13 of 76
Policy LU-57. The City should respond to community initiatives and actively assist
owners and residents with initiating and completing the annexation process.
Policy LU-58. The City should ensure that property owners and residents in and around
the affected area(s) are notified of the obligations and requirements that may be imposed
upon them as a result of annexation.
Policy LU-59. The City should work with potential annexation proponents to develop
acceptable annexation boundaries.
Policy LU-60. The City should conduct a fiscal impact assessment of the costs to
provide service and of the tax revenues that would be generated in each area proposed for
annexation.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 14 of 76
IV. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Goal: Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and
appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites.
Discussion: Renton has a rich and interesting history as a community. It was the site of
an established Native American settlement and changed through the years of early
European immigration into a pioneer town. The City incorporated in 1901 and later
became a major regional employment center and residential area. The following policies
are intended to guide efforts to recognize and integrate Renton’s past into future
development as the City evolves into a dynamic urban community.
Objective LU-O: Communicate Renton’s history by protecting historic and
archaeological sites and structures when appropriate and as opportunities arise.
Policy LU-61. Historic resources should continue to be identified and mapped within the
City as an on-going process.
Policy LU-62. Natural and Ccultural resources should be identified by project
proponents when applying for land use approval, as part of the application submitted for
review.
Policy LU-63. Potentially adverse impacts on cultural resources deemed to be significant
should be mitigated as a condition of project approval. Implementation of this policy
should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-64. The City should work cooperatively with King County by exchanging
resource information pertaining to natural and cultural resources.
Policy LU-65. Historical and archaeological sites, identified as significant by the City of
Renton, should be preserved and/or incorporated into development projects.
Policy LU-66. Downtown buildings and site development proposals should be
encouraged to incorporate displays about Renton's history, including prominent families
and individuals, businesses, and events associated with downtown's past. Implementation
of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 15 of 76
V. NON-CONFORMING USE
Goal: Pursue the transition of non-conforming uses and structures to encourage
more conforming uses and development patterns.
Discussion: As a community grows, changes in land use policies sometimes result in
“non-conforming uses” as remnants of an earlier land use pattern. Some of these non-
conforming uses can retain a viable economic life for long periods of time and even
become desirable reminders of the evolution of the City. These policies are intended to
guide decision-making about non-conforming uses and structures in the context of
current land use policy.
Responsibility for implementing the objectives and policies of this section lies primarily
with the City of Renton.
Objective LU-P: Evaluate requests for rebuilding of non-conforming uses beyond
normal maintenance where they can be made more conforming and are compatible with
their surroundings.
Policy LU-67. Encourage compatibility between non-conforming uses and structures
and conforming uses in neighborhoods that have significant numbers of non-conforming
uses. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the
2004 Update.
Policy LU-68. Encourage developments that increase the number of conforming uses
and structures.
Policy LU-69. Transition of uses and structures from non-conforming to those that
conform to zoning and development standards should be implemented in a manner that
recognizes the overall character of the neighborhood. Implementation of this policy
should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 16 of 76
Policy LU-70. Evaluate permits for non-conforming uses, based on the following
criteria:
1) Relationship of the existing non-conforming use or structure to its surroundings;
2) The compatibility of the non-conforming use with its context and other uses in the
area;
3) Demonstrated community need for the use at its present location;
4) Over-cConcentration of the use within the City or within the area;
5) Suitability of the existing location;
6) Demonstration that the use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent
properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc., (i.e. does not exceed normal
levels in these areas emanating from surrounding permitted uses);
7) Whether the use was associated with a historical event or activity in the community
and as a result has historical significance;
8) Whether the use provides substantial benefit to the community because of either the
employment of a large number of people in the community or whether it generates
considerable revenues to the City; and
9) Whether retention of the use due to current market conditions would not impede or
delay the implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Objective LU-Q: Ensure that the effects of non-conforming structures on character of
the conforming patterns of Renton’s neighborhoods are minimized.
Policy LU-71. Evaluate applications to repair or expand non-conforming structures
based on the following factors:
1) Whether it represents a unique regional or national architectural style or an innovation
in architecture, use of materials, or functional arrangement, and/or is one of the few
remaining examples of such a style or innovation,
2 Whether it is part of a unified streetscape of similar structures that is unlikely to be
replicated, unless the subject structure is rebuilt per, or similar to, its original plan;
3) Whether redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely; and
4) The structure has been well-maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the
public health, welfare, or safety, or it could be retrofitted so as not to pose such a
threat.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 17 of 76
VI. PUBLIC FACILITIES
Goal: Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi-public service
needs of present and future employees.
Discussion: The purpose of these policies is to address the aspect of a public/quasi
public use that is not addressed in the pertinent land use policies. Public facilities, also
includes quasi-public uses such as cultural and religious facilities. Facilities discussed in
this section vary widely in their size, function, service area, and impacts. For that reason,
these policies are aimed at addressing the generic impacts of all of the facilities and the
specific impacts of each. (Renton Technical College and Valley Medical Center are also
addressed in the Commercial Corridor section of the Land Use Element.)
Responsibility for implementing this objective and the following policies lies primarily
with the City of Renton.
Objective LU-R: Locate and plan for public facilities in ways that benefit a broad range
of potential public uses.
Policy LU-72. Facilities should be located within walking distance of an existing or
planned transit stop.
Policy LU-73. Primary vehicular access to sites should be from principal or minor
arterial streets.
Policy LU-74. Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian-oriented.
Policy LU-75. Manage public lands to protect and preserve the public trust.
Policy LU-76. Sites that are underused or developed with obsolete public uses should be
considered for another public use prior to changing uses or ownership.
Policy LU-77. Surplus public sites should be considered for alternative types of public
use prior to sale or lease.
Policy LU-78. A public involvement process should be established to review proposals
to change uses of surplus public properties.
Policy LU-79. Guide and modify development of essential public facilities to meet
Comprehensive Plan policies and to mitigate impacts and costs to the City.
Policy LU-80. Use public processes and create criteria to identify essential public
facilities. Public processes should include notification, hearings, and citizen
involvement. Criteria should be developed to review and assess proposals for public
facilities.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 18 of 76
Objective LU-S: Site and design municipal facilities to provide the most efficient and
convenient service for people while minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding uses.
Policy LU-81. Public amenity features (e.g. plazas, trails, art work) should be
incorporated into municipal projects.
Policy LU-82. Municipal government functions that are people-intensive should be
centrally located in or near the Urban Center.
Policy LU-83. Fire stations should be located on principal or minor arterials.
Policy LU-84. Future fire stations should be sited central to their service area with as
few barriers as possible in order to achieve best possible response times.
Policy LU-85. Land for future fire stations should be acquired in advance in areas where
the greatest amount of development is anticipated.
Policy LU-86. Site and building design of police facilities providing direct service to the
general public should be easily accessible.
Policy LU-87. Major functions of the police should be centralized in or near the Urban
Center.
Policy LU-88. Satellite police facilities may be located outside of the Urban Center.
Objective LU-T: Site and design regional facilities to provide the most efficient and
convenient service for people while minimizing the adverse impacts on adjacent uses and
the City Urban Center.
Policy LU-89. Regional facilities that provide services on-site to the public on a daily
basis (i.e. office uses) should be located in the City's Urban Center.
Policy LU-90. Siting of regional facilities that are specialized (e.g. landfills,
maintenance shops) or serve a limited segment of the population (e.g. justice centers)
should rely more strongly on the special locational needs of the facility and the
compatibility of the facility with surrounding uses.
Objective LU-U: Preserve the cultural amenities and heritage of Renton.
Policy LU-91. The downtown library should continue to be the main facility for the
City.
Policy LU-92. When branch libraries are developed, they should be located to provide
convenient access to a majority of their users.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 19 of 76
Policy LU-93. Future branch libraries and other satellite services may be located in
mixed-use developments to serve concentrations of users in those areas.
Objective LU-V: Assure adequate land and infrastructure at appropriate locations for
development and expansion of facilities to serve the educational needs of area residents
and protect adjacent uses from impacts of these more intensive uses.
Policy LU-94. Post secondary (beyond high school) and other regional educational
facilities that require sites larger than five acres should be located in the Employment
Area – Industrial, Employment Area – Valley, Commercial/Office/Residential, or the
Urban Center designations.
Policy LU-95. Alternative funding sources (e.g. impact fees) should be explored for
facilities necessitated by new development.
Policy LU-96. Schools in residential neighborhoods should consider mitigating adverse
impacts to the surrounding area in site planning and operations.
Policy LU-97. The City and the school district should jointly develop multiple-use
facilities (e.g. playgrounds, sports fields) whenever practical.
Policy LU-98. Community use of school sites and facilities for non-school activities
should be encouraged.
Policy LU-99. School fFacilities that are planned for closure, should be considered for
potential public use before being sold for private development.
Policy LU-100. Elementary schools should be located near a collector arterial street.
Policy LU-101. Safe pedestrian access to schools should be promoted (e.g. through
pedestrian linkages, safety features) through the design of new subdivisions and roadway
improvements.
Policy LU-102. Vehicular access to middle schools, senior high schools and other large-
scale facilities (e.g. bus maintenance shops, sports facilities) should be from arterial
streets.
Objective LU-W: Assure that adequate land and infrastructure are available for the
development and expansion of facilities to serve the health care needs of the area.
Policy LU-103. Health and/or medical facilities larger than five acres should be located
in portions of the Commercial Corridor designation mapped with Commercial Office
zoning, Employment Area – Valley, Commercial/Office/Residential or the Urban Centers
designations. Smaller scale facilities should locate in the Commercial Arterial portions
of Commercial Corridor.
Objective LU-X: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner that provides
convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land
uses.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 20 of 76
Policy LU-104. When locating in predominantly residential areas, religious facilities
should be on the periphery of the residential area rather than the interior.
Policy LU-105. Parking should be provided on-site and buffered from adjacent uses.
Policy LU-106. Large-scale facilities should be encouraged to locate contiguous to an
existing or planned transit route.
Policy LU-107. Religious facilities should be located on and have direct access to either
an arterial or collector street.
Objective LU-Y: Accommodate large, commercial recreationrecreational uses that
depends on open land and is are intended to serve regional usersconsumer demands
within a region.
Policy LU-108. Commercial, regional recreational uses should be located contiguous to
a principal arterial in areas with immediate access to an interstate or a state route.
Policy LU-109. Commercial recreational uses should be located outside of the trade area
of other commercial recreational areas offering similar recreational opportunities.
Policy LU-110. Vehicular access to a commercial recreational site should be from a
principal arterial street with the number of access points minimized.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 21 of 76
VII. RESOURCE LAND
Goal: Maintain the City’s agricultural and mining resources as part of Renton’s
cultural history.
Discussion: Renton is an urban community with a rich history based on industrial and
agricultural uses that is now transitioning into a vibrant urban center. Some agricultural
resource-based uses remain in environmentally sensitive areas of the Potential
Annexation Area and in Residential Low Density Designations or on vacant land in
commercial areas. Current policies recognize these existing uses and encourage them as
cultural resources where they may be appropriate.
Responsibility for implementing the objectives and policies of this section lies primarily
with the City of Renton.
Objective LU-Z: Maintain existing commercial and hobby agricultural uses such as
small farms, hobby farms, horticulture, beekeeping, kennels, and stables, that are
compatible with urban development. Allow sale of products produced on site.
Policy LU-111. Prohibit commercial agricultural uses that are industrial or semi-
industrial in nature, and create nuisances such as odor or noise that may be incompatible
with residential use.
Policy LU-112. Limit access of large domestic animals to shorelines and wetlands.
Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004
Update.
Policy LU-113. Control impacts of crop and animal raising on surface and ground water.
Policy LU-114. Encourage public and private recreational uses in agricultural areas.
Policy LU-115. Allow cultivation and sale of flowers, herbs, vegetables, or similar crops
in residential areas, as an accessory use and/or home occupation. Implementation of this
policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-116. Recognize and allow community gardens on private property, vacant
public property, and unused rights-of-ways. Implementation of this policy should occur
within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update.
Objective LU-AA: Maintain extractive industries where their continued operation does
not impact adjacent residential areas, the City's aquifer, or other critical areas.
Policy LU-117. Extractive industries including timber, sand, gravel and other mining
within the City's Potential Annexation Area should be mapped and appropriately zoned
ATTACHMENT C
Page 22 of 76
upon annexation to the City. Policies governing these sites should be consistent with the
King County Comprehensive Plan.
Policy LU-118. Mining and processing of minerals and materials should be allowed
within the City subject to applicable City ordinances, environmental performance
standards.
Policy LU-119. Extractive sites, when mined out, should be regraded and restored for
future development compatible with land use designations for adjacent sites.
Implementing code will be in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004
Update.
Policy LU-120. New plats adjacent to operating extractive sites should carry a notice on
the face of the plat specifying the impacts that are expected from the extractive use:
potential dust, noise, traffic, light and glare.
Policy LU-121. Hours of operation of extractive uses should be based on impacts to
adjacent uses.
Policy LU-122. The City should apply conditional use permits or other approvals as
appropriate for mineral extraction and processing when:
1) The proposed site contains rock, sand, gravel, coal, oil, gas, or other mineral
resources,
2) The proposed site is large enough to confine or mitigate all operational impacts,
3) The proposal will allow operation with limited conflicts with adjacent land uses
when mitigating measures are applied, and;
4) Roads or rail facilities serving or proposed to serve the site can safely and
adequately handle transport of products and are in close proximity to the site.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 23 of 76
VIII. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES
Goal: Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that:
j) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity;
k) Are walkable places where people can shop, play, and get to work without
always having to drive;
l) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make
efficient use of urban services and infrastructure;
m) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and
lifestyle;
n) Are varied or unique in character;
o) Support “grid” and “flexible grid” street and pathway patterns where
appropriate;
p) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live;
q) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and
r) Provide a sense of home.
Discussion: The purpose of the Residential policies is to provide a Citywidecitywide
residential growth strategy. The Residential policies address the location of housing
development, housing densities, non-residential uses allowed in residential areas, site
design, and housing types in neighborhoods. (See Public Facilities Section for policies
on schools, churches, and other facilities in residential areas. See Housing Element for
policies relating to housing types and neighborhoods and the Community Design Element
for policies guiding quality design.)
Responsibility for residential objectives and policies lies with the City of Renton for
implementation and the development community, which should propose projects that
meet the residential goals, objectives, and policies of the City.
Objective LU-BB: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton and
the Potential Annexation Area that:
1) Supports transit by providing urban densities,
2) Promotes efficient land utilization, and
3) Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features.
Policy LU-123. Pursue multiple strategies for residential growth including:
1) Development of new neighborhoods on larger land tracts on the hills and plateaus
surrounding downtown;
2) Infill development on vacant and underutilized parcels in Renton’s established
neighborhoods;
3) Multi-family development located in Renton’s Urban Center;
ATTACHMENT C
Page 24 of 76
4) Infill in existing multi-family areas; and
5) Mixed-use projects and multi-family development in Commercial/Office/Residential
and Commercial Corridors Land Use designations.
Policy LU-124. Promote the timely and logical progression of residential development.
Priority for higher density development should be given to development of land with
infrastructure capacity and land located closer to the City's Urban Center.
Policy LU-125. Encourage a city-widecitywide mix of housing types including:
1) Large-lot single family;
2) Small-lot single family;
3) Small-scale and large-scale rental and condominium multi-family housing; and
4) Residential/commercial mixed-use development.
Objective LU-CC: Maintain the goal of a fifty-fifty ratio of single family to multi-
family housing outside of the Urban Center.
Policy LU-126. A maximum of fifty percent (50%) of future residential land capacity
should occur in multi-family housing in parts of the City and PAA located outside of the
Urban Center.
Policy LU-127. Infrastructure impacts of the goal of 50/50 ratio of single-family to
multi-family outside the Urban Center should be evaluated as part of the City’s Capital
Improvements program.
Policy LU-128. Multi-family unit types are encouraged as part of mixed-use
developments in the Urban Center, Center Village, Commercial/Office/Residential, and
the Commercial Corridor Land Use designations.
Policy LU-129. Small-lot, single-family infill developments and plats should be
supported as alternatives to multi-family development to both increase the City’s supply
of single-family detached housing and provide homeownership opportunities.
Policy LU-130. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for
residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or
areas identified as urban separators.
Policy LU-131. Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a
transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City
should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas.
Policy LU-132. Discourage creation of socio-economic enclaves, especially where lower
income units would be segregated within a development.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 25 of 76
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: Policies in this section are intended to guide development on land
appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either
constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot
housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory.
Lands that are not appropriate for urban levels of development are designated either
Resource Conservation or Residential Low Density, with Resource Conservation or
Residential 1 zoning Zoning.
Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected
by the critical areas ordinance, are zoned Residential 4.
Responsibility for residential objectives and policies lies with the City of Renton for
implementation and the development community, which should propose projects that
meet the residential goals, objectives, and policies of the City.
Objective LU-DD: Provide opportunities for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses
adjacent to and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential
Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features, providing urban separators
and/or providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County.
Policy LU-133. Identify and map areas of the City where environmentally sensitive
areas such as 100-year floodplains, floodways, and hazardous landslide and erosion areas
are extensive and the application of critical areas regulations alone is insufficient to guide
future development.
Policy LU-134. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres
(Resource Conservation) to 1 home per acre (Residential 1) on Residential Low Density
(RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not
limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in
a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre
(Residential 4) on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints
are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate.
Policy LU-135. For the purpose of mapping four dwelling units per net acre (4-du/ac)
zoned areas as contrasted with lower density Residential 1 (R-1) and Resource
Conservation (RC) areas, the prevalence of significant environmental constraints should
be interpreted to mean:
1) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area;
2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur
on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist;
3) The location of the sensitive area results in a non-contiguous development pattern;
Formatted: Font: Italic
ATTACHMENT C
Page 26 of 76
4) The area is a designated urban separator; or
5) Application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setbacks/buffers and/or net density
definition would create a situation where the allowed density could not be
accommodated on the remaining net developable area without modifications or
variances to other standards.
Implementation of this policy should be phased in within three years of the adoption of
the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-136. Rural activities, such as agricultural and animal husbandry, should be
allowed.
Policy LU-137. Warehousing, outdoor storage, equipment yards, and industrial uses
should not be allowed. Where such uses exist as non-conforming uses, measures should
be taken to negotiate the transition of these uses as residential redevelopment occurs.
Policy LU-138. To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum
preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered and/or lot sizes
reduced within allowed density levels in Residential Low Density designations.
Implementation of this policy should be phased in within two three years of the adoption
of the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-139. Minimize impacts of animal and crop-raising on adjacent residential
uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers.
Policy LU-140. Control scale and density of accessory buildings and barns to maintain
compatibility with other residential uses.
Policy LU-141. Residential Low Density areas may be incorporated into Urban
Separators.
Policy LU-142. Undeveloped portions of Residential Low Density areas may be
considered for designation of conservation easements, trail easements or other public
benefits through agreements with private parties.
Objective LU-EE: Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD
designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable
environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings.
Policy LU-143. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density
of 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of
upper income housing consistent with the City’s Housing Element.
Policy LU-144. Ensure quality development by supporting site plans and plats that
incorporate quality building and landscaping standards.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 27 of 76
Policy LU-145. Interpret development standards to support projects with higher quality
housing by requiring:
1) A variety of compatible housing styles making up block fronts;
2) Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs, roof overhangs, and/or
decorative cornices, fenestration and trim; and
3) Building modulation and use of durable exterior materials such as wood, masonry,
stucco, or brick.
Policy LU-146. Interpret development standards to support provision of landscape
features as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include:
1) Attractive residential streetscapes with landscaped front yards that are visible from
the street;
2) Landscaping, preferably with drought- resistant evergreen plant materials;
3) Large caliper street trees;
4) Irrigated landscape planting strips;
5) Low-impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious
surfaces for surface water runoff; and
6) Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement.
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: Lands in thedesignated Residential Single Family Designation areis
intended to be used for quality residential detached residential development organized
into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill
development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and
improve the quality of single-family living environments.
Policies in this section are to be considered together with the policies in the Regional
Growth, Residential Growth Strategy section of the Land Use Element, the Community
Design Element, and the Housing Element. Policies are implemented with R-8 zoning.
Objective LU-FF: Encourage re-investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and
development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that:
1) Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets,
2) Promote expansion and use of public transportation; and
3) Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure.
Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0
dwelling units per net acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods.
Policy LU-148. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in-fill
parcels of less than one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in single-family designations. Allow a
reduction in lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than one acre to create an
ATTACHMENT C
Page 28 of 76
incentive for aggregation of land. The minimum lot size is not intended to set the
standard for density in the designation, but to provide flexibility in subdivision/plat
design and facilitate development within the allowed density range.
Policy LU-149. Lot size should exclude private sidewalks, easements, private road, and
driveway easements, except alley easements.
Policy LU-150. Required setbacks should exclude public or private legal access areas,
established through or to a lot, and to parking areas.
Policy LU-151. Maximum height of structures should not exceed two (2) stories in
single-family residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-152. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface
should be sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy
without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities.
Policy LU-152.1: Variances to standards in LU-152 should not be granted to facilitate
additional density on an infill site.
Policy LU-153. Interpret development standards to support plats designed to incorporate
vehicular and pedestrian connections between plats and neighborhoods. Small projects
composed of single parcels and/or multiple parcels of insufficient size to provide such
connections, should include future street stubs. Future street connections should be
clearly identified to notify residents of future roadway connections.
Policy LU-154. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project
designs incorporating street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes that
address privacy and quality of life for existing residents.
Policy LU-155. New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood
developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts
between old and new development patterns. However, strict adherence to older standards
is not required.
Policy LU-156. Interpret development standards to support projects incorporating site
features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes that can be retained to
enhance neighborhood character and preserve property values where possible.
Replanting should occur where trees are not retained due to safety concerns. Retention of
unique site features should be balanced with the objective of investing in neighborhoods
within the overall context of the Vision Statement of this Comprehensive Plan.
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION
ATTACHMENT C
Page 29 of 76
Purpose Statement: The Residential Medium Density designation is intended to create
the opportunity for neighborhoods that offer a variety of lot sizes, housing, and
ownership options.
Residential Medium Density neighborhoods should include a variety of unit types
designed to incorporate features from both single-family and multi-family developments,
support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill development, encourage use of transit
service, and promote the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure.
Objective LU-GG: Designate land for Residential Medium Density (RMD) where
access, topography and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of
unit types designed to incorporate features from both single-family and multi-family
developments, and to support cost-efficient housing, infill development, transit service,
and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure.
Policy LU-157. Residential Medium Density designated areas should be zoned for either
Residential 10 dwelling units per net acre (R-10), Residential 14 dwelling units per net
acre (R-14), or new zoning designations that allow housing in this density range.
Policy LU-158. Residential Medium Density neighborhoods may be considered for
Residential 10 (R-10) zoning if they meet three of the following criteria:
1) The area already has a mix of small-scale multi-family units or has had long standing
zoning for flats or other low-density multi-family use;
2) Development patterns conducive to medium-density development are established;
3) Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential for medium-density infill
development;
4) The project site is adjacent to major arterial(s) and public transit service is located
within ¼ mile;
5) The site can be buffered from existing single-family residential neighborhoods having
densities of eight (8) dwelling units or less; or
6) The site can be buffered from adjacent or abutting incompatible uses.
Policy LU-159. Areas may be considered for Residential 14 (R-14) Zoningzoning where
the site meets the following criteria:
1) Adjacent to major arterial(s);
2) Adjacent to the Urban Center, Highlands Neighborhood Center Village, or
Commercial Corridor designations;
3) Part of a designation totaling over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownership);
4) Site is buffered from single-family areas or other existing, potentially incompatible
uses; and
5) Development within the density range and of similar unit type is achievable given
environmental constraints.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 30 of 76
Policy LU-160. Support projects that create neighborhoods with diverse housing types
that achieve continuity through the organization of roads, sidewalks, blocks, setbacks,
community gathering places, and amenity features.
Policy LU-161. Support residential development incorporating a hierarchy of streets.
Street networks should connect through the development to existing streets, avoid “cul-
de-sac” or dead end streets, and be arranged in a grid street pattern (or a flexible grid
street system if there are environmental constraints).
Policy LU-162. Development densities in the Residential Medium Density designation
area should range from seven (7) to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre, as specified
by implementing zoning.
Policy LU-163. For attached or semi-attached development in the R-14 zoned portions
of the Residential Medium Density designation, a bonus density of 18 four (4) additional
dwelling units per acre should be available, subject to Density Bonus Review and other
applicable development conditions.
Policy LU-164. When a minimum density is applicable, the minimum development
density in the Residential Medium Density designation should be four (4) dwelling units
per net acre.
Objective LU-HH: Residential Medium Density designations should be areas where
creative approaches to housing density can be implemented.
Policy LU-165. Provision of small lot, single-family detached unit types, townhouses,
and multi-family structures compatible with a single-family character should be allowed
and encouraged in the Residential Medium Density designation, provided that density
standards can be met (see also the Housing Element for housing types).
Policy LU-166. Very small-lot, single-family housing, such as cottages, zero-lot line
detached, semi-detached, townhouses, and small scale multi-family units should be
allowed in the Residential Medium Density designation in order to provide a wide range
of housing types. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the
adoption of the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-167. A range and variety of lot sizes and building densities should be
encouraged.
Policy LU-168. Residential developments should include public amenities that function
as a gathering place within the development and should include features such as a public
square, open space, park, civic or commercial uses in the R-14 zone. The central place
should include passive amenities for passive recreation such as benches and fountains,
and be unified by a design motif or common theme.
Policy LU-169. Residential Medium Density site development plans having attached or
semi-attached housing types should reflect the following criteria for projects:
ATTACHMENT C
Page 31 of 76
1) Parking should be encouraged in the rear or side yards or under the structure;
2) Structures should be located on lots or arranged in a manner to appear like a platted
development to ensure adequate light and air, and views (if any) are preserved
between lots or structures;
3) Buildings should be massed in a manner that promotes a pedestrian scale with a small
neighborhood feeling;
4) Each dwelling unit should have an identifiable entrance and front on streets rather
than courtyards and parking lots;
5) Fences may be constructed if they contribute to an open, spacious feeling between
units and structures; and
6) Streetscapes should include green, open space for each unit.
Policy LU-170. Residential Medium Density development should provide condominium
or fee simple homeownership opportunities, as well as rental or lease options.
Objective LU-II: Residential Medium Density development should be urban in form
and fit into existing residential neighborhoods if developed as infill projects.
Policy LU-171. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior
courtyards or parking areas.
Policy LU-172. Non-residential structures, such as community recreation buildings, that
are part of the development, may have dimensions larger than residential structures, but
should be compatible in design and dimensions with surrounding residential
development.
Policy LU-173. Non-residential structures should be clustered and connected within the
overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, focal points, and
amenity features to create a neighborhood.
Policy LU-174. Single-family detached building types in the Residential Medium
Density designation should have a maximum lot coverage by the primary structure of
fifty (50) percent.
Policy LU-175. In the Residential Medium Density designation common open space
equal to 1,200-square feet per unit and maintained by a homeowners’ association, should
be provided for each semi-attached or attached unit.
Policy LU-176. Support site plans that transition to and blend with existing development
patterns using techniques such as lot size, depth and width, access points, building
location setbacks, and landscaping. Sensitivity to unique features and differences among
established neighborhoods should be reflected in site plan design. Interpret development
standards to support ground-related orientation, coordinated structural design, and private
yards or substantial common space areas.
Policy LU-177. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of a project in the Residential 14 zone
should consist of the following primary residential types: traditional detached, zero lot
ATTACHMENT C
Page 32 of 76
line detached, or townhouses with individual yards that are scaled appropriately for each
unit.
Policy LU-178. Longer townhouse buildings or other types of multi-family buildings,
considered secondary residential types (see RMC 4-9-065), should be limited in size so
that the mass and bulk of the building has a small scale multi-family character, rather
than that of a large, garden-style apartment development.
Policy LU-179. In the Residential 14 zone, multi-unit townhouses that qualify as a
primary residential type (see RMC 4-9-065) should be limited in size so that the mass and
bulk is at a human scale.
Policy LU-180. Projects in a Residential 14 zone should have no more than fifty (50)
percent of the units designed as secondary residential types, i.e. longer townhouse
building clusters, or longer multi-family buildings of other types.
Policy LU-181. Mixed-use development in the form of civic, commercial development,
or other non-residential structures, may be allowed in the central places of Residential
Medium Density development projects within the Residential 14 zone, subject to
compliance with criteria established through development regulations.
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: The multi-family residential land use designation is intended to
encourage a range of multi-family living environments that provide shelter for a wide
variety of people in differing living situations, from all income levels, and in all stages of
life.
Although some people live in multi-family situations because they do not have an
alternative, others prefer living in multi-family environments rather than in single-family,
detached houses. Regardless of why they live there, they want and deserve the same high
standards for their homes and neighborhoods.
Single-family and multi-family residential developments have different impacts on the
community.
The City must identify a housing mix and implement policies that adequately address and
balance the needs of both residents and the community as a whole.
The Multi-family Residential designation is implemented by Residential Multi-family
(RMF) zoning.
Objective LU-JJ: Encourage the development of infill parcels with quality projects in
existing multi-family districts.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 33 of 76
Policy LU-182. Residential Multi-family designations should be in areas of the City
where projects would be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is
adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses.
Policy LU-183. Land within the Residential Multi-family designation areas should be
used to meet multi-family housing needs, without expanding the area boundaries, until
land capacity in this designation is used. Residential Multi-family designations have the
highest priority for development or redevelopment with multi-family uses.
Policy LU-184. Expansion of the Residential Multi-family designation is limited to
properties meeting the following criteria:
1) Properties under consideration should take access from a principal arterial, minor
arterial, or collector. Direct access should not be through a less intense land use
designation area;
2) Properties under consideration must abut an existing Residential Multi-family land
use designation on at least two (2) sides and be on the same side of the principal
arterial, minor arterial, or collector serving it; and
3) Any such expansion of the Residential Multi-family land use designation should not
bisect or truncate another contiguous land use district.
Policy LU-185. Development density in the Residential Multi-family designation should
be within a range of ten (10) dwelling units per acre as a minimum to twenty (20)
dwelling units per acre as a maximum.
Objective LU-KK: Due to increased impacts to privacy and personal living space
inherent in higher density living environments, new development should be designed to
create a high quality living environment.
Policy LU-186. New stacked flat and townhouse development in Residential Multi-
family designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with
existing multi-family developments in the vicinity.
Policy LU-187. Detached cottage housing designed to include site amenities with
common open space features should be supported in multi-family designations if density
goals are met. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption
of the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-188. Evaluate project proposals in Residential Multi-family designations to
consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density
zones. Setbacks may be increased, heights reduced, and additional landscape buffering
required through site plan review. Implementing code will be put in place within three
years of the adoption of the 2004 Update.
1) In order to increase the potential compatibility of multi-family projects, with other
projects of similar use and density, minimum setbacks for side yards should be
proportional to the total lot width, i.e. wider lots should require larger setback
dimensions;
ATTACHMENT C
Page 34 of 76
2) Taller buildings (greater than two stories) should have larger side yard setback
dimensions; and
3) Heights of buildings should be limited to three stories and thirty-five (35) feet, unless
greater heights can be demonstrated to be compatible with existing buildings on
abutting and adjacent lots.
Objective LU-LL: New Residential Multi-family projects should demonstrate provision
of an environment that contributes to a high quality of life for future residents, regardless
of income level. Implementing code will be put in place within two years of the adoption
of the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-189. Support project design that incorporates the following, or similar
elements, in architectural design:
1) Variation of facades on all sides of structures visible from the street with vertical and
horizontal modulation or articulation;
2) Angular roof lines on multiple planes and with roof edge articulation such as
modulated cornices;
3) Private entries from the public sidewalk fronting the building for ground floor units;
4) Ground floor units elevated from sidewalk level;
5) Upper-level access interior to the building;
6) Balconies that serve as functional open space for individual units; and
7) Common entryways with canopy or similar feature.
Policy LU-190. Support project site planning that incorporates the following, or similar
elements, in order to meet the intent of the objective:
1) Buildings oriented toward public streets,
2) Private open space for ground-related units,
3) Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful,
4) Preferably underground parking or structured parking located under the residential
building,
5) Surface parking, if necessary, to be located to the side or rear of the residential
building(s),
6) Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property, and
7) Landscaping, consisting of groundcover and street trees (at a minimum), of all
setbacks and rights-of way abutting the property.
Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the
2004 Update.
Policy LU-191. Residential Multi-family projects in the RMF zone should have a
maximum site coverage by buildings of thirty-five (35) percent, or forty-five (45) percent
if greater coverage can be demonstrated to be both mitigated on site with amenities and
compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots.
Policy LU-192. Residential Multi-family projects should have maximum site coverage
by impervious materials of seventy-five (75) percent.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 35 of 76
IX. CENTERS
Goal: Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office,
office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and
the region.
Discussion: The Centers category of land use includes two areas of the City, the Center
Village in the Highlands and the Urban Center located in the historic downtown and the
employment area north to Lake Washington.
The Urban Center includes two sub-areas: Urban Center- Downtown (220 acres) and the
Urban Center-North (310 acres). Together these two areas are envisioned to evolve into a
vibrant city core that provides arts, entertainment, regional employment opportunities,
recreation, and quality urban residential neighborhoods. The Renton Urban Center is
envisioned as the dynamic heart of a growing regional city. Renton’s Urban Center will
provide significant capacity for new housing in order to absorb the city’s share of future
regional growth. This residential population will help to balance the City’s employment
population and thereby meet the policy directive of a 2:1 ratio of jobs to housing.
The Center Village designation is envisioned as a revitalized residential and commercial
area providing goods and services to the Greater Highlands area. The area could
potentially become a focal point for a larger area, the Coal Creek Corridor, connecting
Renton to Newcastle to and Issaquah. While development is envisioned at a smaller
scale than expected in the Urban Center, the Village Center will still focus on urban
mixed-use projects with a pedestrian pedestrian-oriented development pattern.
Objective LU-MM: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at
sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a
viable district.
Policy LU-193. Promote the innovative site planning and clustering of Center uses and
discourage the development of strip commercial areas.
Policy LU-194. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support
economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to
achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives.
Policy LU-195. Designate Center boundaries according to the following criteria:
1) The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity;
2) Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills,
and significant stands of trees;
3) Boundaries should occur along public rights-of-way including streets or utility
easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern.
Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels; and
4) As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within a walkable distance
from one or two focal points, which may be defined by intersections, transit stops, or
shopping centers.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 36 of 76
Policy LU-196. Designate Centers in locations with the following characteristics:
1) A nucleus of existing multi-use development;
2) Potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of
development;
3) Center locations should be located on major transit and transportation routes;
4) Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system.
Policy LU-197. Change adopted boundaries only in the following circumstances:
1) The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use
that would make implementation of the boundary illogical, or
2) The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range
and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center.
Policy LU-198. Support new office and commercial development that is more intensive
than the older office and commercial development in existing Centers in order to create
more compact and efficient Centers over time.
Policy LU-199. Allow stand-alone residential development of various types and urban
densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial development, or in the
Urban Center in districts designated for residential use.
Policy LU-200. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed-use
developments. Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial
uses or lower density residential that is adjacent to Centers.
Policy LU-201. Include uses that are compatible with each other within mixed-use
developments; for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and
retail.
Policy LU-202. Locate and design commercial uses within a residential mixed-use
development in a manner that preserves privacy and quiet for residents.
Policy LU-203. Modify existing commercial and residential uses that are adjacent to or
within new proposed development to implement the new Center land use vision as much
as possible through alterations in parking lot design, landscape, signage, and site plan as
redevelopment opportunities occur.
Policy LU-204. Consolidate signage for mixed-use development.
Policy LU-205. Identify major natural features and support development of new focal
points that define the Center and are visually distinctive.
Policy LU-206. Design focal points to include a combination of public areas such as
parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit
stops, or outdoor eating areas. These features should be connected to pedestrian
pathways if possible.
Policy LU-207. Evaluate existing intersections of arterial roadways for opportunities to
create focal points.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 37 of 76
Policy LU-208. Consolidate access to existing streets and provide internal vehicular
circulation that supports shared access.
Policy LU-209. Locate parking for residential uses in the mixed-use developments to
minimize disruption of pedestrian or auto access to the retail component of the project.
Policy LU-210. Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design
features such as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces.
Objective NN: Implement Renton’s Urban Center consistent with the “Urban Centers
criteria” of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to create an area of concentrated
employment and housing with direct service by high capacity transit and a wide range of
land uses such as commercial/office/retail, recreation, public facilities, parks and open
space.
Policy LU-211. Renton’s Urban Center should be maintained and redeveloped with
supporting land use decisions and projects that accomplish the following objectives:
1) Enhance existing neighborhoods by creating investment opportunities in quality
urban scale development;
2) Promote housing opportunities close to employment and commercial areas;
3) Support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on
automobiles;
4) Strive for urban densities that use land more efficiently;
5) Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services;
6) Reduce costs of and time required for permitting; and
7) Evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts.
Policy LU-212. Establish two sub-areas within Renton’s Urban Center.
1) Urban Center-Downtown (UC-D) is Renton’s historic commercial district,
surrounded by established residential neighborhoods. The UC-D is located from the
Cedar River south to South 7th Street and between I-405 on the east and Shattuck
Avenue South on the west.
2) Urban Center–North (UC-N) is the area that includes Southport, the Puget Sound
Energy sub-station, and the South Lake Washington redevelopment area. The UC-N
is located generally from Lake Washington on the north, the Cedar River and Renton
Municipal Airport to the west, Sixth Street and Renton Stadium to the south, and
Houser Way to the east.
Policy LU-213. Maintain zoning that creates capacity for employment levels of 50
employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the
Urban Center.
Policy LU-214: Support developments that utilize Urban Center levels of capacity.
Where market conditions do not support Urban Center employment and residential levels,
support site planning and/or phasing alternatives that demonstrate how, over time, infill
or redevelopment can meet Urban Center objectives.
Policy LU-215. Site and building design should be pedestrian/people oriented with
provisions for transit and automobiles where appropriate.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 38 of 76
URBAN CENTER DOWNTOWN LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: The Urban Center - Downtown (UC-D) is expected to redevelop as
a destination shopping area providing neighborhood, citywide, and sub-regional services
and mixed-use residential development. UC-D residential development is expected to
support urban scale multi-family projects at high densities, consistent with Urban Center
policies. Projects in the UC-D are expected to incorporate mixed-uses including retail,
office, residential, and service uses that support transit and further the synergism of
public and private sector activities. In the surrounding neighborhoods, infill urban scale
townhouse and multi-family residential developments are anticipated. Site planning and
infrastructure will promote a pedestrian scale environment and amenities.
Objective LU-OO: Create a balance of land uses that contribute to the revitalization of
downtown Renton and, with the designated Urban Center - North, fulfill the requirements
of an Urban Center as defined by Countywide Planning Policies.
Policy LU-216. Uses in the Urban Center - Downtown should include a dynamic mix of
uses, including retail, entertainment, restaurant, office, and residential, that contribute to a
vibrant city core.
Policy LU-217. Development and redevelopment of Urban Center - Downtown should
strive for urban density and intensity of uses.
Policy LU-218. Ground floor uses with street frontage along Wells Avenue South
between Houser Way and South 2nd Street and along South 3rd Street between Main
Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South should be limited to businesses which primarily
cater to walk-in customer traffic (i.e. retail goods and services) in order to generate and
maintain continuous pedestrian activity in these areas. Walk-in customer oriented
businesses should also be encouraged to locate along street frontages in the remainder of
the downtown core.
Policy LU-219. Projects in the Urban Center - Downtown should achieve an urban
density and intensity of development that is greater than typical suburban neighborhoods.
Characteristics of urban intensity include no or little setbacks, taller structures, mixed-
uses, structured parking, and urban plazas and amenities within buildings.
Policy LU-220. Non-conforming uses should transition to conforming uses. Non-
conforming structures should be re-used to house conforming uses unless the size and
scale of the structure significantly limits the intensity and quality of development that can
be achieved.
Policy LU-221. Development should not exceed mid-rise heights (maximum10 stories)
within the Urban Center - Downtown.
Objective LU-PP: Encourage the evolution of downtown Renton as a regional
commercial district that complements the redevelopment expected to occur in the Urban
Center - North.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 39 of 76
Policy LU-222. Automobile-related sales and service uses that require large amounts of
land and currently exist within the Urban Center – Downtown should be encouraged to
locate in the City’s "Auto Mall" located outside of the Urban Center - Downtown or to
consolidate their sites and provide multi-storied facilities. New automobile-related sales
and service uses should be discouraged from locating in the Urban Center - Downtown.
Policy LU-223. Discourage uses including expansion of existing uses in the Urban
Center - Downtown that require large areas of surface parking and/or drive-through
service queuing space.
Objective LU-QQ: Encourage additional residential development in the Urban Center -
Downtown supporting the Countywide Planning Policies definition of Urban Center.
Policy LU-224. Maximize the use of existing urban services and civic amenities and
revitalize the City's downtown by promoting medium to high-density residential
development in the downtown area. Allowed densities should conform to the criteria for
Urban Centers in the countywide policies.
Policy LU-225. Mixed-use development where residential and commercial uses are
allowed in the same building or on the same site, should be encouraged in the urban
Center - Downtown. Incentives should be developed to encourage future development or
redevelopment projects that incorporate residential uses.
Policy LU-226. Net residential development densities in the Urban Center - Downtown
designation should achieve a range of 14-100 dwelling units per acre and vary by zoning
district.
Policy LU-227. Density bonuses up to 150 du/ac may be granted within designated areas
for provision of, or contribution to, a public amenity (e.g. passive recreation, public art)
or provision of additional structured public parking.
Policy LU-228. Condominium development and high-density owner-occupied
townhouse development is encouraged in the Urban Center - Downtown.
Objective LU-RR: Recognize the following Downtown Districts reflecting varying
development standards and uses that distinguish these areas.
1) Downtown Pedestrian District;
2) Downtown Core;
3) South Renton’s Williams-Wells Subarea (see South Renton Neighborhood Plan);
4) South Renton’s Burnett Park Subarea (see South Renton Neighborhood Plan); and
5) Cedar River Subarea north of the Downtown Core.
Policy LU-229. Encourage the most intensive development in the Downtown Pedestrian
District and Downtown Core with a transition to lower-scale commercial and residential
projects in areas surrounding the Downtown Core.
Policy LU-230. Ground-floor uses with street frontage in the Downtown Pedestrian
District should be limited to businesses that primarily cater to walk-in customer traffic
ATTACHMENT C
Page 40 of 76
(i.e. retail goods and services) in order to generate and maintain continuous pedestrian
activity in these areas.
Policy LU-231. Walk-in customer-oriented businesses should be encouraged to locate
along street frontages in the Downtown Core Area and the portion of the Urban Center -
Downtown located west of it.
Policy LU-232. Medium-rise residential (6-10 stories) should be located within the
Cedar River Subarea, primarily between the Cedar River and South 2nd, and between
South 7th and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way.
Policy LU-233. The area between South 7th and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-
of-way should include a combination of low- (1-5 stories) and medium-rise residential to
provide a transition between the employment area and the mixed-use core.
Policy LU-234. Specific streetscapes, development standards, and design guidelines for
the South Renton Neighborhood are outlined in the South Renton Neighborhood Plan
within the Subarea Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Objective LU-SS: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking
demand within the downtown.
Policy LU-235. Parking should be structured whenever feasible. Accessory surface
parking is discouraged.
Policy LU-236. The existing supply of parking should be better managed to encourage
joint use rather than parking for each individual business.
Policy LU-237. Downtown parking standards should recognize the different demands
and requirements of both local and regional commercial parking versus those of office
and residential uses.
Policy LU-238. Alternatives to individual on-site parking that encourage efficient use of
urban land (e.g. fees in lieu of parking, multiple-use or shared parking leased off-site
parking, car-sharing) should be encouraged.
Policy LU-239. Parking standards and requests for parking modifications for downtown
residents should reflect the market demand of urban residential uses, taking into account
transit service availability, car-sharing availability, and other transportation demand
management tools available.
Policy LU-240. In order to maximize on-streeton street parking availability in the
downtown, loading and delivery areas for downtown uses should be consolidated and
limited to alleys, other off-street areas, or city-designated on-street loading zones. Alley
and off-street loading and delivery areas should be screened from view of the street.
Policy LU-241. Alleys should be maintained in the Urban Center - Downtown in order
to facilitate use of alley-accessed parking areas, freight delivery, and removal of refuse
and recyclables.
Objective LU-TT: Develop a transit circulation/distribution system that provides
convenient connections between downtown and residential, employment, and other
commercial areas within the Renton planning area.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 41 of 76
Policy LU-242. Transit should link the downtown with other parts of the Urban Center,
other commercial activity areas, and the City’s major employment areas to encourage use
of the downtown by those employees both during and after work hours.
Policy LU-243. Future development and improvements in the Urban Center –
Downtown should emphasize non-automobile oriented travel both to and within the
downtown, while maintaining an adequate amount of parking for regional retail
customers. Transit and parking programs should be integrated, balanced, and
implemented concurrently.
Policy LU-244. Both intercity and intra-city transit should be focused at the Renton
Transit Center, the multi-modal transit facility located in the Downtown Core Area.
Policy LU-245. Permanent park and ride facilities in the Urban Center - Downtown
should use structured parking garages and support the Transit Center.
Policy LU-246. Continue development of transit-oriented development in the activity
node established by the downtown transit facility.
Policy LU-247. Seek ways of improving speed and reliability of transit serving Renton’s
Downtown.
Policy LU-248. Transit span of service should increase as Downtown Renton adds
evening entertainment, dining, and recreation opportunities.
Objective LU-UU: Improve the City's pedestrian and bicycle network to increase access
to and circulation within the Urban Center - Downtown.
Policy LU-249. Pedestrian spaces should be emphasized and connected throughout the
downtown.
Policy LU-250. Pedestrians should be given priority use of sidewalks within the Urban
Center – Downtown designated pedestrian areas.
Policy LU-251. Block lengths and widths should be maintained at the pedestrian-
friendly standards that predominate within the downtown.
Policy LU-252. Where right-of-way is available and bicycle demand justifydemand
justifies them, bicycle lanes should be marked and signed to accommodate larger
volumes of bicycle traffic on select streets designated by the City.
Policy LU-253. Secure bicycle parking facilities, such as bike lockers and bike racks
should be provided at residential, commercial, and public establishments to encourage
bicycle use.
Objective LU-VV: Improve the visual, physical and experiential quality, lighting and
safety, especially for pedestrians, along downtown streets.
Policy LU-254. Strong visual linkages should be created between downtown Renton and
neighborhoods using landscaped arterial streets and connectors.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 42 of 76
Policy LU-255. Buildings along South 3rd Street between Main and Burnett Avenues
should retain a pedestrian scale by employing design techniques that maintain the
appearance and feel of low-rise structures to avoid creation of the "canyon effect" (e.g.
preserving historic façades, stepping façades back above the second or third floor).
Policy LU-256. Downtown gateways should employ distinctive landscaping, signage,
art, architectural style, and similar techniques to better delineate the downtown and
enhance its unique character.
Policy LU-257. Parking lots and structures should employ and maintain landscaping and
other design techniques to minimize the visual impacts of these uses.
Objective LU-WW: Improve the visual and physical appearance of buildings to create a
more positive image for downtown.
Policy LU-258. Site and building designs, (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and
setback; landscaping; and parking, should reflect unity of design to create a distinct sense
of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses.
Policy LU-259. Incentives should be developed to encourage rehabilitation (e.g. facade
restoration) of older downtown buildings.
Objective LU-XX: Maintain and expand the available amenities to make the Urban
Center - Downtown more appealing to existing and potential customers, residents, and
employees.
Policy LU-260. Design guidelines should assist developers in creating attractive projects
that add value to the downtown community, attract new residents, employees, and
visitors, and foster a unique downtown identity.
Policy LU-261. Design guidelines may vary by zone within the downtown area to
recognize and foster unique identities for the different land use areas (i.e. South Renton’s
Burnett Park subareaSubarea).
Policy LU-262. New downtown parks should complement existing park facilities and be
compatible with planned trails. Trails should be integrated with the existing trail system.
Policy LU-263. Urban Center - Downtown development should be designed to take
advantage of existing unique downtown amenities such as the Cedar River, City parks
and trails, the downtown Transit Center, IKEA Performing Arts Center, and Renton High
School.
Policy LU-264. Public amenities such as art, fountains, or similar features should be
incorporated into the design of public areas, major streets and gateways of the Urban
Center - Downtown.
URBAN CENTER NORTH LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new
office, residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban
Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 43 of 76
Center is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban
Center-Downtown, due to the large available areas of land holdings under single
ownershipavailable for redevelopment. In addition, this new development is expected to
include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and
development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping
districts, and a range of urban-scale, mixed-use residential, office and commercial uses.
The combined uses will generate significant tax income for the City and provide jobs to
balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center.
Development is expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies
will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dynamic,
urban mixed-use district.
Policy LU-265. Support more urban intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk,
landscaping, parking standards) than with land uses in the suburban areas of the City
outside the Urban Center.
Policy LU-266. Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City’s tax and employment
base.
Policy LU-267. Support a range and variety of commercial and office uses.
Policy LU-268. Allow hospitality uses such as hotels, convention and conference
centers.
Policy LU-269. Co-locate uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban
style, mixed-use development.
Policy LU-270. Support incorporation of public facilities such as schools, museums,
medical offices, and government offices into redevelopment efforts by developing a
public/private partnership with developers and other Renton stakeholders such as the
school district, technical college, and hospital district.
Policy LU-271. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of
50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within
the entire Urban Center.
Policy LU-272. Support uses that serve the region, a sub-regional, or citywide market as
well as the surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LU-273. Support integration of community-scale office and service uses
including restaurants, theaters, day care, art museums and studios.
Policy LU-274. Support transit stations and transit usage connecting to a system of park
and ride lots outside the Urban Center-North. Support park and ride facilities within the
Urban Center only when they are included in structured parking as a stand-alone use or
are developed as part of a mixed-use project.
Policy LU-275. Support an expanded and extended public right-of-way in the vicinity of
the present Logan Avenue to provide new arterial access within the Urban Center.
Additionally, this will provide a physical buffer between redevelopment and continuing
airplane manufacturing operations.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 44 of 76
Policy LU-276. Support extension of Park Ave. to Lake Washington.
Policy LU-277. Recognize the need for secure limited access within large manufacturing
facilities by retaining private drives and roads in areas where airplane manufacturing
operations continue.
Policy LU-278. Support creation of a significant gateway feature within gateway nodes
as shown on in the Urban Center-North Gateway Map.
Policy LU-279. Support private/public partnerships to plan and finance infrastructure
development, public uses and amenities.
Policy LU-280. Use a hierarchy of conceptual plan, master plan and site plan review and
approval to encourage the cohesive development of large land areas within the Urban
Center-North. Incorporate integrated design regulations into this review process.
Policy LU-281. Address the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density,
conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of gateway features, signs,
circulation, transit opportunities, and phasing through master plan and site plan review
process.
Policy LU-282. Fully integrate signage, building height, bulk, setbacks, landscaping, and
parking considerations in structures and site plans across the various components of each
proposed development.
Policy LU-283. Require significant pedestrian element in internal site circulation plans.
Policy LU-284. Allow phasing plans for mixed-use projects.
Policy LU-285. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial
redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and
intensities over time.
Policy LU-286. Support structured parking to facilitate full redevelopment of the Urban
Center over the 30-year planning horizon. Where structured parking is infeasible for
early phases of development, parking should be located in the rear or the side of the
primary structure.
Policy LU-287. Discourage parking lots between structures and street right-of-way.
Policy LU-288. Orient buildings to streets to emphasize urban character, maximize
pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the District.
Policy LU-289. Use design regulations to provide direction on site design, building
design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation.
Policy LU-290. Support a combination of internal and external site design features such
as:
1) Plazas;
2) Prominent architectural features;
3) Significant natural features;
4) Distinctive focal features; and
5) Gateways.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 45 of 76
Policies for surrounding Surrounding residential Residential area Area (north
North Renton neighborhood Neighborhood, south of N 6th St)
Policy LU-291. Provide a transition in land use with respect to intensity of development
where areas mapped Residential Single Family and Residential Options border Urban
Center - North designations.
Policy LU-292. Create boulevard standards for arterial streets connecting or running
through adjacent residential neighborhoods that address noise, pedestrian sidewalks,
planting areas between vehicular lanes and pedestrian areas, traffic calming techniques,
lighting standards, a landscape planting plan for street trees and other vegetation, and
street furniture.
Policy LU-293. Support a mix of activities within the Urban Center - North designation
that supports populations in adjacent residential areas as well as new development within
the re-development area. Examples of uses that serve the needs of existing populations
include neighborhood-scale retail that addresses the day-to-day needs of residents,
restaurants and coffee houses, public facilities, and places of assembly such as parks and
plazas.
Policies for Public Facilities
Policy LU-294. Evaluate public facility needs for projected new populations within the
Urban Center – North to accommodate a wide range of future users.
Policy LU-295. Support a partnership with community stakeholders such as the Renton
School District to provide a transition for public properties adjacent to the Urban Center –
North such as the Sartori School and Renton Stadium facilities. Transition of these
facilities could range from accommodating a new clientele as the area transitions to
mixed mixed-use activities, or physical re-development of properties addressing the
needs of employees or residents of the Urban Center.
Policy LU-296. Recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as an essential Essential public
Public facilityFacility. (See Section section on Airport Compatibility Compatible Land
Use Policiespolicies).
Urban Center North Districts
The proposed Urban Center-North is divided into two districts for planning purposes.
Each District district has a different emphasis in terms of range, intensity, and mix of
uses. These are District One, east of Logan Avenue, and District Two, west of Logan
Avenue. The implementation of planning concepts for District Two will be dependent on
decisions by The Boeing Company regarding continued airplane assembly operations at
the Renton Plant. For this reason, initiation of redevelopment in District Two will likely
occur after transition of the area east of Logan Avenue, District One, has begun.
Consolidation of Boeing operations may cause certain property located within District
One to be deemed surplus, making it available for redevelopment within the near future.
District One is envisioned to include a variety of uses. The intensity of these uses would
require substantial infrastructure improvements. More extensive development, ultimately
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 46 of 76
anticipated with the future development of District Two, will likely require even more
significant infrastructure upgrades.
Redevelopment in both districts of the Urban Center - North will be responsive and
protective of the North Renton residential neighborhood to the south. While the North
Renton neighborhood is not a part of the Urban Center, its residents will benefit from the
significant amenities provided by development of a new urban community.
Redevelopment within both districts will occur in a manner that is not incompatible with
the operations at the Renton Municipal Airport, recognizing that the airport is an essential
Essential public Public facility Facility located within an urban area. Redevelopment
within both districts will be consistent with the City’s Airport Compatible Land Use
Program. The program responds to State requirements to consider how land use in the
surrounding areas affects the Renton airport.
The current supply of underutilized land north of N. 8th Street creates an immediate
redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. However,
the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties, both within District Two
to the west and the Employment Area-Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to
achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The
overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise
structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development
facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values
increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for
high-quality redevelopment in District Two.
The following “visions” have been developed for each District.
Vision - District One
The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large-
scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial
development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings surrounding
internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian-oriented spine along
Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be
remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may
also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District.
Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a
destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use,
urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped
that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district.
In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail
center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially
may be handled in surface lots, their configuration, juxtaposed with smaller building
units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas
unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned
adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from
a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated
shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-format (“big-
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 47 of 76
box”) retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are
architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated
shopping centers. Cafes with outdoor seating, tree-lined boulevards and small gathering
places invite shoppers to linger after making their initial purchases. Retail development
takes an urban form with high-quality design considering a human scale and pedestrian
orientation.
While retail development will add to the City’s tax base and create a modest increase in
employment, the vision for the Urban Center-North is that of a dense employment center.
Within the initial phases of redevelopment, job growth will also occur in high-quality,
well-designed flex/tech development and low- to mid-rise office, lab and research and
development buildings that provide attractive environments for companies offering high-
wage careers in information technology, life sciences and light (“clean”) manufacturing
and assembly industries.
Redevelopment in this area will also include residential opportunities in low- to mid-rise
buildings with upper-story office and/or ground-related retail. Additional supporting
retail will also be constructed. Logan Avenue is extended and redeveloped for public use
as a major, tree-lined parkway.
During the second generation of redevelopment in District One, changing property values
and further investment will allow for higher density development in the form of offices
and residences mixed with other uses. As this area is transformed into a mature mixed-
use district, community gathering spaces and recreation facilities to support the City's
neighborhoods and business districts become viable. Cultural facilities, as well as
convention and conference centers may be located within the District and could be
incorporated into mixed-use development with retail, office and hotels. Small parks, open
space, and community gathering places will be incorporated into site design. Facilities
such as multiple-screen theaters and other cultural facilities may add to the amenity value
of the District.
District One Policies
Objective LU-YY: Create a major commercial/retail district developed with uses that
add significantly to Renton’s retail tax base, provide additional employment opportunities
within the City, attract businesses that serve a broad market area and act as a gathering
place within the community.
Policy LU-297. Support office and technology-based uses with retail uses and services
along portions of the ground floors to facilitate the creation of an urban and pedestrian
environment.
Policy LU-298. Support uses supporting high-technology industries such as
biotechnology, life sciences, and information technology by providing retail amenities
and services in the area.
Policy LU-299. Allow for the development of destination retail centers that are
consistent with a district-wide conceptual plan.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 48 of 76
Policy LU-300. Encourage the placement of buildings for retail tenants along pedestrian-
oriented streets to create urban configurations.
Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive,
urban-scale retail developments.
Policy LU-302. Encourage a variety of architectural treatments and styles to create an
urban environment.
Objective LU-ZZ: Create an urban district initially characterized by high-quality,
compact, low-rise development that can accommodate a range of independent retail,
office, research, or professional companies. Support the continuing investment in and
transition of low-rise development into more intensive, urban forms of development to
support a vital mixed-use district over time.
Policy LU-303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development through master planning,
building location, and design guidelines.
Policy LU-304. Support urban forms of setback and buffering treatment such as:
a) Street trees with sidewalk grates,
b) Paving and sidewalk extensions or plazas, and
c) Planters and street furniture.
Policy LU-305. Allow phasing plans for developments as part of the master plan and site
plan review that:
a) Provide a strategy for future infill or redevelopment with mixed-use buildings.
b) Preserve opportunities for future structured parking and more intense
employment-generating development.
Policy LU-306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or
under-building parking is not market viable.
Policy LU-307. Support development of parking structures using private/public
partnerships when the market will not support structural parking without subsidy.
Policy LU-308. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of
blocks, screened from the street by structures with landscape buffers.
Policy LU-309. Consider public/private participation in provision of structured parking,
to stimulate additional private investment and produce a more urban environment.
Policy LU-310. Support shared parking by averaging parking ratios for co-located and
mixed-uses.
Policy LU-311. Reduce the suburban character of development, preserve opportunities
for infill development, and provide for efficient use of land by setting maximum parking
standards.
Policy LU-312. Support the co-location of uses within a site and/or building in order to
promote urban style mixed-use (commercial/retail/office/residential) development.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 49 of 76
Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads.
Vision - District Two
Ongoing Boeing airplane manufacturing is supported by the City and expected to
continue across District Two for the foreseeable future. This important industrial base
will continue to provide high-wage jobs within the Urban Center – North as
redevelopment occurs in District One.
Should Boeing surplus property west of Logan Avenue, redevelopment that follows will
take on more urban characteristics, incorporating mixed-use (residential, office, and
retail) development types. Planning for the redevelopment of District Two will take into
consideration the unique issues involved in the transition of a site historically used for
heavy industry adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport. Redevelopment will be
consistent with the City’s Urban Center-NorthRenton Municipal Airport Compatible
Land Use Program.
Eventually, redevelopment will lead to the creation of a vibrant new lakefront community
providing additional housing, shopping, and employment opportunities to the region. The
South Lake Washington neighborhood will be a center of activity in the Puget Sound
region—a premiere address for residents, a hub of economic activity providing capacity
for high-wage jobs, and a world-class destination for shopping, dining, recreation, and
entertainment
Mixed-use projects will be high in design and construction quality, and offer landmark
living, shopping, and working environments planned to take advantage of a regionally
centralized location, efficient access, mass transit, potential passenger ferry connections,
stellar views of lake and mountains, and restored natural environments along the Cedar
River and Lake Washington shorelines.
Development within District Two will be organized into neighborhoods with housing,
shopping, employment, and recreation opportunities located within walking distance.
Low- to mid-rise buildings will be located to the south while development to the north
will be primarily mid-to- high-rise in order to maximize views. While some on-street or
surface parking may occur, the majority of parking will be provided in the lower levels of
mixed-use buildings or in stand-alone structures designed to blend in with the
surrounding neighborhood.
This environment attracts a residential population living in up-scale neighborhoods
featuring higher-density condominium and apartment forms of housing north of N. 8th St.
Townhouse developments south of N. 8th St. provide a transition to the adjacent North
Renton neighborhood in terms of scale and use of buildings. Residents of both
neighborhoods will find ample shopping and employment opportunities in the immediate
vicinity.
Residents, employees and visitors will enjoy new public open space. These range from
public access to the lakefront through small parks, overviews, and trails, to large public
plazas and central greens that provide gathering places, recreational opportunities, and a
celebration of views of the Seattle skyline, the Olympic Mountains, and Mount Rainier.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 50 of 76
District Two Policies
Objective LU-AAA: Support ongoing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses.
Policy LU-314. Support existing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses while
allowing for the gradual transition to other uses should The Boeing Company surplus
property within District Two.
Policy LU-315. Allow airplane manufacturing and related accessory uses such as
airplane sales and repair, laboratories for research, development and testing, medical
institutions, and light industrial uses including small scale or less intensive production
and manufacturing, and fabricating with accessory office and support services.
Objective LU-BBB: If Boeing elects to surplus property in District Two, land uses will
should transition into an urban area characterized by high-quality development offering
landmark living, shopping and work environments planned to take advantage of access
and views to the adjacent river and lake shorelines.
Policy LU-316. Should The Boeing Company elect to surplus properties in District Two
support the redevelopment with a range and variety of commercial, office, research, and
residential uses.
1) Support a mid- to high-rise scale and intensity of development.
2) Support retail and service activities as ancillary uses that are synergistic with
commercial, office, biotech, research, technology, and residential activities.
Traditional retail (Main Street), general business and professional services, and
general offices are examples of the types of uses that are supported in combination
with other activities.
3) Support urban scale residential development in District Two. North of N. 8th Street
structured parking should be required.
4) Allow a limited range of service uses, such as churches, government offices and
facilities, commercial parking garages, and day care centers through the conditional
use process.
5) Allow eating and drinking establishments and cultural facilities as part of office or
mixed-use development.
6) Prohibit new warehousing, storage including self-storage, vehicle sales, repair and
display (including boats, cars, trucks and motorcycles), assembly and packaging
operations, heavy and medium manufacturing and fabrication unrelated to production
of new commercial airplanes.
7) Support development of public amenities such as public open space, schools,
recreational and cultural facilities, and museums.
8) Allow commercial uses such as retail and services provided that they support the
primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated into the
development.
CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 51 of 76
Purpose Statement: Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an
opportunity for redevelopment as close-in urban mixed-use residential and commercial
areas that are pedestrian pedestrian-oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide
medium to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial
activities serving citywide and sub-regional markets. Center Villages typically are
developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to
modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban
areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian
circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept.
Objective LU-CCC: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban
development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provides a pedestrian
scale environment.
Policy LU-317. Apply the Center Village Designation designation to areas with an
existing suburban and auto-oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and
proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher
density mixed-use type of development.
Policy LU-318. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning
designations including Residential 10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential
Multi-family (RMF).
Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the
Center Village and replace zoning designations or re-zone with the vision for a Center
Village designation
Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub-area plan to further refine the land use
concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the
Highlands Redevelopment Plan is expected to occur over a 2 – 5- year period.
Strategy 319.3. Areas east of Edmonds and north of Sunset currently zoned RMF are to
remain in residential use. The area north of 12th St. currently zoned R-10 is to remain in
residential use.
Policy LU-320. Allow residential density ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum
of 80 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village Designationdesignation.
Policy LU-321. Encourage mixed-use structures and projects.
Policy LU-322. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians and people
to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the
Center Village.
Policy LU-323. Accommodate parking within a parking structure. Where structured
parking is infeasible due to site configuration, parking should be located in the back or
the side of the primary structure. Discourage Pparking lots between structures and street
rights-of- way shall not be permitted.
Policy LU-324. Use alley access where alleys currently exist. Encourage designation of
new alleys in redevelopment projects.
Policy LU-325. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 52 of 76
Policy LU-326. Develop design guidelines to provide direction on site design, building
design, landscape treatments, and parking, and circulation components of new
development projects. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years
of the adoption of the 2004 Update.
Policy LU-327. Encourage uses in Center Villages that serve a sub-regional or citywide
market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LU-328. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g.
building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within Center Villages than with land uses
outside the Centers.
Policy LU-329. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage
the development of strip commercial areas.
Policy LU-330. Residential development within Center Villages is intended to be urban
scale, stacked, flat and/or townhouse development with structured parking.
Policy LU-331. Prohibit new garden style multi-family development.
Policy LU-332. Provide community scale office and service uses.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 53 of 76
X. COMMERCIAL
Goal: Support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for
new commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use
residential uses that enhance the City’s employment and tax base along arterial
boulevards and in designated development areas.
Discussion: There are three commercial designations:
1) Commercial Corridor;
2) Commercial/Office/Residential; and
3) Commercial Neighborhood.
These commercial areas range from intense retail corridors to major office parks to
neighborhood scale commercialbusiness districts. Many commercial areas are located
along arterials where the high volumes of daily traffic provide a substantial customer
base.
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: The Commercial Corridor district is characterized by concentrated,
pre-existing commercial activity, primarily in a linear urban form, that provides
necessary goods and services for daily living, accessible to near-by neighborhoods,
serving a sub-regional market and accommodating large volumes of traffic.
It is the intention of City objectives and policies that Commercial Corridor areas evolve
from “strip commercial” linear business districts to business areas characterized by
enhanced site planning incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access,
amenities, and boulevard treatment. Commercial Corridor areas may include designated
districts including concentrations of specialized uses such as the Auto Mall, or features
such as transit stops and a combination of businesses creating a focal point of pedestrian
activity and visual interest.
Commercial Corridor areas are characterized by medium intensity levels of activity. It is
anticipated, however, that intensity levels in these areas will increase over time as
development of vacant space occurs, increased land value makes redevelopment feasible,
and land is used more efficiently. In these districts, provision of pedestrian amenities is
encouraged, as are opportunities to link adjacent uses and neighborhoods.
Objective LU-DDD: The Commercial Corridor land use designation should include:
1) Established commercial and office areas;
2) Developments located on large parcels of land;
3) Projects that may be highly visible from principal arterials;
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 54 of 76
4) Uses dependent upon or benefiting from high-volume traffic;
5) Uses that provide significant employment; and
6) Businesses that provide necessary or desirable goods and services to the larger
community.
Policy LU-333. The Commercial Corridor Land Use designation should be mapped in
areas with the following characteristics:
1) Located on, and having access to, streets classified as principle principal arterials;
2) High traffic volumes; or
3) Land use pattern characterized by strip commercial development, shopping centers, or
office parks.
Policy LU-334. The Commercial Corridor designation should be implemented through
Commercial Arterial, Commercial Office, or Light Industrial zoning.
Policy LU-335. Increased demand for commercial uses should be accommodated
primarily through redevelopment and intensification of existing business area
designations rather than expansion of those areas.
Objective LU-EEE: Create opportunities for development and re-development of land
in portions of the Commercial Corridor designation for general business and service uses.
These include a wide range of restaurant, small-scale to big-box retail, offices, auto
dealers, light industrial, and residential uses.
Policy LU-336. Portions of the Commercial Corridor designation appropriate for a wide
range of uses catering to low and medium intensity office, service, and retail uses should
be mapped with Commercial Arterial zoning.
Policy LU-337. Areas that should be considered for Commercial Arterial zoning should
meet the following criteria:
1) The corridor is served by transit or has transit within one-quarter mile;
2) A historical strip commercial urban development pattern predominates;
3) Large, surface parking lots exist;
4) Primary development on the site is located at rear portions of the property with
parking in front of the buildings;
5) Parcel size and configuration typically is defined by a larger parcel fronting the
arterial street with multiple buildings and businesses; and
6) The corridor exhibits long block lengths and/or an incomplete grid street network.
Policy LU-338. Commercial Arterial zoned areas should include an opportunity for
residential uses and office as part of mixed-use development.
Objective LU-FFF: Create opportunities for intensive office uses in portions of
Commercial Corridor designations including a wide range of business, financial, and
professional services supported by service and commercial/retail activities.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 55 of 76
Policy LU-339. Areas of the City identified for intensive office use may be mapped with
Commercial Office implementing zoning when site is developed, historically used for
office, or the site meets the following criteria:
1) Site is located contiguous to an existing or planned transit route;
2) Large parcel size;
3) High visibility; and
4) Opportunities for views.
Policy LU-340. Small-scale medical uses associated with major institutions should be
located in the portions of Commercial Corridor designated areas with Commercial Office
zoning, in the Urban Center, or in the Employment Area – Valley.
Policy LU-341. Retirement centers that have a medical facility as a component of the
services offered should be located in areas of the Commercial Corridor that have
Commercial Office zoning.
Policy LU-342. Medium and high intensity office should be encouraged as the primary
use in Commercial Office zoned areas.
Policy LU-343. Retail and services should support the primary office use in areas
identified for Commercial Office zoning, and should be located on the ground floor of
office and parking structures.
Policy LU-344. In the Commercial Office zone, high-rise office development should be
limited to ten (10) stories. Fifteen (15) stories may be obtained through a height bonus
system.
Policy LU-345. Height bonuses of five (5) stories may be allowed for office buildings in
designated areas of the Commercial Office zone, under appropriate conditions, where
sites provide additional public benefits such as plazas, parks, exceptional landscaping,
and/or public art.
Objective LU-GGG: Guide redevelopment of land in the Commercial Corridor
designation with Commercial Arterial zoning, from the existing strip commercial urban
forms into more concentrated forms, in which structures and parking evolve from the
existing suburban form, to more efficient urban configurations with cohesive site
planning.
Policy LU-346. Support the redevelopment of commercial business districts located
along principal arterials in the City.
Policy LU-347. Implement development standards that encourage lively, attractive,
medium to high-density commercial areas.
Policy LU-348. Encourage consolidation of individual parcels to maximize flexibility of
site design and reduce access points.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 56 of 76
Policy LU-349. Support development plans incorporating the following features:
1) Shared access points and fewer curb cuts;
2) Internal circulation among adjacent parcels;
3) Shared parking facilities;
4) Allowance for future transition to structured parking facilities;
5) Centralized signage;
6) Unified development concepts; and
7) Landscaping and streetscape that softens visual impacts.
Policy LU-350. New development in Commercial Corridor designated areas should be
encouraged to implement uniform site standards, including:
1) Minimum lot depth of 200 feet;
2) Maximum height of ten (10) stories within office zoned designations;
3) Parking preferably at the rear of the building, or on the side as a second choice;
4) Setbacks that would allow incorporating a landscape buffer;
5) Front setback without frontage street or driveway between building and sidewalk; and
6) Common signage and lighting system.
Policy LU-351. Identify and map activity nodes located along principal arterials that are
the foundation of the Corridors, and guide the development or redevelopment of these
nodes as activity areas for the larger corridors so that they enhance their function.
Policy LU-352. Development within defined activity nodes should be subject to
additional design guidelines as delineated in the development standards.
Policy LU-353. Structures at Commercial Corridor intersections should not be set back
from the street and sidewalk so as to allow vehicular circulation or parking to be located
between the sidewalk and the building.
Policy LU-354. Commercial Corridor intersections frequented by pedestrians, due to the
nature of nearby uses or transit stops, should feature sidewalk pavement increased to
form pedestrian corners and include pedestrian amenities, signage, and special design
treatment that would make them identifiable as activity areas for the larger corridor.
Policy LU-355. Parking at designated intersections should be in back of structures and
not located between structures and the sidewalk or street.
Policy LU-356. Structures in Commercial Corridor areas that front sidewalks abutting
the principal arterial or are located at activity nodes should be eligible for a height bonus
and therefore may exceed the maximum allowable height in the district.
Policy LU-357. Public amenity features (e.g. plazas, recreation areas) should be
encouraged as part of new development or redevelopment.
Policy LU-358. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers,
berms), especially along roadways, to reduce visual impacts.
Objective LU-HHH: Support methods of increasing accessibility to Commercial
Corridor areas for both automobile and transit to support the land use objectives of the
district.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 57 of 76
Policy LU-359. Support routing of the citywide transit system to Commercial Corridor
areas to provide greater access.
Policy LU-360. Encourage development proponents to work with the City
Transportation Division, King County METRO, and Sound Transit in order to site transit
stops within the Commercial Corridor areas.
Policy LU-361. Public transportation transit stops located in Commercial Corridor areas
should be safe, clean, comfortable, and attractive.
Objective LU-III: Ensure quality development in Commercial Office zones.
Policy LU-362. Office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building
height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent
land uses.
Policy LU-363. Parking provided on-site, in parking structures, and either buffered from
adjacent uses or incorporated into pedestrian-oriented street design, is preferred.
Policy LU-364. In areas developed with high intensity office uses, circulation within the
site should be primarily pedestrian-oriented.
Policy LU-365. In areas developed with high intensity office uses, vehicular access to
the site should be from the primary street with the access points minimized and designed
to ease entrance and exit.
Policy LU-366. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), should be
encouraged (i.e. through incentives or similar means) as part of every high-intensity
office development.
Policy LU-367. In areas developed with high intensity office uses, site and building
design should be transit-, people-, and pedestrian-oriented. Ground floor uses and design
should be pedestrian-oriented.
Objective LU-JJJ: Where Commercial Corridor areas intersect other land use
designations, recognition of a transition and/or buffer between uses should be
incorporated into redevelopment plans.
Policy LU-368. Consideration of the scale and building style of near-by residential
neighborhoods should be included in development proposals.
Policy LU-369. Development should be designed to consider potential adverse impacts
on adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting, landscaping, and setbacks should all be
considered during site design.
Policy LU-370. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and screening
devices such as berms and fencing should be employed to reduce impacts (e.g. visual,
noise, odor, light) on adjacent, less intensive uses.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 58 of 76
Renton Auto Mall
Discussion: The Renton Auto Mall is intended to serve several purposes on behalf of the
City and business community. It increases vehicle sales and corresponding tax revenue
returned to the City. It has special development standards that are predictable, cohesive,
and uniform throughout the District.
It is easily accessible from regional interstate transportation systems, and improves and
increases values of underdeveloped property. The Auto Mall, by providing a District for
this concentrated activity, allows land that might otherwise be used for vehicle sales and
service to be reutilized more efficiently in other Districts, such as the Urban Center.
Additional benefits may accrue to both City residents and people on a regional basis due
to the opportunity to comparison shop and conveniently participate in activities related to
auto sales and service.
Objective LU-KKK: Provide support for a cohesive Commercial Corridor District
specifically for the concentration of auto- and vehicular-related businesses in order to
increase their revenue and the sales tax base for the City.
Policy LU-371. The Renton Auto Mall should be primarily located along SW Grady
Way, between Oakesdale Ave. S.W. and Williams Ave. S., but may be expanded beyond
this area as warranted.
Policy LU-372. The objectives and policies of the Commercial Corridor designation
should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning within Auto Mall District A
and by the underlying zoning in Auto Mall District B.
Objective LU-LLL: In order to further the continued cohesiveness of the Auto Mall
Improvement District, a right-of-way improvement plan should be completed, adopted,
and implemented by the City in coordination with property owners and auto dealers.
Policy LU-373. The coordinated right-of-way improvement plan should address area
gateways, signage, landscaping, circulation, and shared access.
Policy LU-374. A designated gateway to the Auto Mall District should be made visually
distinctive through the use of gateway features.
Policy LU-375. In order to facilitate the consolidation of land into a cohesive district,
fees and other compensation normally levied for street right-of-way vacation should be
waived.
Objective LU-MMM: Auto Mall Improvement District development standards, site
planning, and project review should further the goal of the City to present an attractive
environment for doing regional-scale, auto-related business.
Policy LU-376. Landscaping along principal arterials should be uniform from parcel to
parcel in order to further the visual cohesiveness of the District.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 59 of 76
Policy LU-377. On-site landscaping should consist of a minimum two and one half
percent (2.5%) of the gross site area.
Policy LU-378. On-site landscaping should primarily be located at site entries, in front
of buildings, and at other locations with high visibility from public areas.
Policy LU-379. Vehicle service areas should not be readily visible from public rights-of-
way.
Objective LU-NNN: Use of the Auto Mall District by pedestrians should be encouraged
by improving safety and creating an attractive, “walkable” business environment.
Policy LU-380. Designated walkways should be part of a larger network of pedestrian
connections between businesses throughout the district.
Policy LU-381. To enhance use of the Auto Mall Improvement District by pedestrians
the following features should be used:
• Wheel stops or curbs placed to prevent overhang of sidewalks by vehicle
bumpers.
• Customer parking located and clearly marked near site entries.
• Coordinated dealer-to-dealer signage should be developed.
NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor
Discussion: The NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor is unique in the City due to the highly
eclectic mix of commercial and residential uses along its length. These integrated uses,
located at a “gateway” to the City, are an appropriate signal to those entering Renton
that the community is diverse in many ways. Height limitations in the Development
Standards have kept buildings along the NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor at two stories or
below, a scale that is generally consistent with the various forms of residential along the
corridor.
Objective LU-OOO: A special district should be designated along NE Sunset
Boulevard. The purpose of this area would be to make the commercial environment
more attractive to local and sub-regional shoppers so that local businesses will be more
economically viable and the City’s tax base will increase. Implementing code will be put
in place within three years of the adoption date for the GMA update.
Policy LU-382. Within the NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor, a “Business District” should
include the commercial properties along NE Sunset Blvd. from Duvall Ave. N.E. to west
of Union Ave. N.E.
Policy LU-383. The NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor, due to its location on the east
boundary of the City, should include City gateway features.
Policy LU-384. The NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor, due to its location abutting
Highlands Neighborhood Center, should be considered a gateway to that district and
feature design elements that are coordinated with, and reflect the nature of the Highlands
Neighborhood Center Village.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 60 of 76
Policy LU-385. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the NE Sunset
Boulevard Corridor should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning.
Policy LU-386. Vehicle sales businesses existing in the NE Sunset Boulevard Business
Corridor should be encouraged to relocate to the Renton Auto Mall District.
Northeast Fourth Corridor
Discussion: The Northeast Fourth Corridor is an active commercial area located at a
gateway to the City. It features a wide variety of retail and service uses and several
different structural forms from small professional offices to large-scale strip malls with
major grocery anchors.
Annexations of land into the City to the east of this commercial area and subsequent
development of large single family housing projects has increased the market area for the
Northeast Fourth Corridor considerably in recent years.
Objective LU-PPP: A special commercial area should be designated along Northeast
Fourth Street. The purpose of this area would be to enhance the commercial environment
to increase revenue of local businesses and the City’s tax base.
Policy LU-387. Within the Northeast Fourth Corridor, the “Business District” should be
bounded by Queen Avenue NE (on the west) and Field Ave N.E. (on the east).
Policy LU-388. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the Northeast
Fourth Corridor Business District should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA)
zoning.
Objective LU-QQQ: The Northeast Fourth Corridor Business District should be
enhanced to improve efficiency, safety and attractiveness to both potential shoppers and
pass-through traffic.
Policy LU-389. Due to its location at a key entrance to the City from the east, the
Northeast Fourth Corridor Business District should include gateway features.
Policy LU-390. The Northeast Fourth Business District should be enhanced with
boulevard design features such as landscaped center- of -road medians for the purpose of
improving safety through traffic control and slowing traffic for pedestrian safety and
improved conditions for vehicles leaving and entering the principal arterial.
Policy LU-391. To the extent possible, undeveloped parcels and pads and/or
redevelopment in the Northeast Fourth Corridor Business District should feature street-
facing building facades located a maximum of fifteen (15) feet set back from the non-
curb edge of sidewalks abutting the principal arterial.
Policy LU-392. In the Northeast Fourth Business Corridor Business District, where
buildings are set back more than fifteen (15) feet from the principal arterial, new
development or redevelopment should:
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 61 of 76
1. Contribute a furnished public gathering space, abutting the sidewalk along the
principal arterial, of no less than 1,000 square feet with a minimum dimension of
twenty (20) feet on one side. Such space should have landscaping, including street
trees, decorative paving, pedestrian-scaled lighting and seating, at a minimum.
2. Designate appropriate site(s) for future pad development for additional commercial
structures located to conform to maximum setback requirements.
Rainier Avenue Corridor
Discussion: The Rainier Avenue Corridor is one of the most commercially viable areas
of the City. Redevelopment of infrastructure and businesses in the Rainier Corridor
would present the opportunity to strengthen the transition between the Corridor, a major
transportation route through the west part of the City, and the Urban Center. Changes of
this nature could increase the economic vitality of Renton’s Downtown.
Objective LU-RRR: A special commercial area should be designated along Rainier
Avenue. The purpose of this area would be to enhance the commercial environment to
increase revenue of local businesses and the City’s tax base.
Policy LU-393. Within the Rainier Avenue Corridor, the “Business District” should be
bounded by properties directly north of S. 2nd Street on the north and the Houser railroad
trestle on the south where it abuts the Auto Mall District.
Policy LU-394. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the Rainier
Avenue Corridor Business District should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA)
zoning.
Policy LU-395. Uses in the Rainier Avenue Corridor should be primarily retail-oriented,
and may have an emphasis on providing goods on a high-volume, vehicle-accessed basis,
but should also provide high-quality and specialty goods.
Objective LU-SSS: Due to the nature of the retail core business in the Rainier Avenue
Corridor, vehicular access and egress safety should be a primary consideration.
Policy LU-396. In the Rainier Avenue Corridor access points to businesses fronting the
principal arterial should be consolidated if at all possible and curb cuts reduced wherever
feasible.
Policy LU-397. Business signs in the Rainier Avenue Business Corridor should be
uniform in size, content, and location to reduce visual clutter. Monument signs are the
preferred type.
Policy LU-398. New billboard signs should be disallowed in the Rainier Avenue
Corridor Business District due to the large scale of the signs in relation to the scale of the
district. Existing signs should be well-maintainedwell maintained so that visual impact is
reduced.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 62 of 76
Objective LU-TTT: The Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District should be enhanced
to improve efficiency, safety and attractiveness to both potential shoppers and pedestrians
using the public transportation system.
Policy LU-399. In the Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District, due to significant
pedestrian use of the intersections of Rainier Avenue and Sunset Boulevard/South Third
Street, Rainier Avenue and South Third Place, and Rainier Avenue and South Fourth
Street, sidewalk widths at these locations should be increased to create pedestrian corners
whenever redevelopment occurs. Pavement should be increased for added pedestrian
safety.
Policy LU-400. On corners having high-volume pedestrian traffic, the paved sidewalk
area should be increased in size. This may require a larger building setback at the corners
of buildings when building facades abut the sidewalk.
Policy LU-401. Pedestrian corners should include urban street furniture such as a bench
or benches, an information kiosk, and a trash receptacle.
Policy LU-402. Rainier Avenue should be improved with landscaped median and
additional street trees to improve safety and appearance.
Policy LU-403. Property owners and business owners should be encouraged to provide
awnings or other weather protection on facades of buildings fronting sidewalks.
Objective LU-UUU: The Rainier Avenue Corridor Business Corridor District is one of
the busiest arterials in the City and is located as a gateway to the City from both the south
and north. The design, function, and configuration of the District should reflect its status
as a key gateway.
Policy LU-404. The Rainier Avenue Corridor should feature gateway elements to the
extent made possible by redevelopment.
Policy LU-405. Signage in the Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District should include
high quality City directional signs to the Urban Center, City Hall, IKEA Performing Arts
Center, Piazza Park, City parking garage, library, museum, and other prominent public
destinations.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 63 of 76
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 64 of 76
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 65 of 76
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 66 of 76
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 67 of 76
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) designation provides
opportunities for large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multi-family projects
developed through a master plan and site plan process incorporation significant site
amenities and/or gateway features. COR sites are typically transitions from an industrial
use to a more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake
Washington and/or the Cedar River.
Objective LU-VVV: Development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations
should be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural
amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity
values that creates a prominent identity.
Policy LU-406. Designate Commercial/Office/Residential in locations meeting the
following criteria:
1) There is the potential for redevelopment, or a sufficient amount of vacant land to
encourage significant concentration of development;
2) The COR site could function as a gateway to the City;
3) COR sites should be located on major transit and transportation routes; and
4) The COR location has significant amenity value, such as water access, that can
support landmark development.
Policy LU-407. Consistent with the locational criteria, Commercial/Office/Residential
designations may be placed on property adjacent to, or abutting, residential, commercial,
industrial designations or publicly owned properties. COR designations next to higher
intensity zones such as industrial, or next to public uses, may provide a transition to less
intense designations in the vicinity. Site design of COR should consider the long-term
retention of adjacent or abutting industrial or public uses.
Policy LU-408. Uses in Commercial/Office/Residential designations should include
mixed-use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, recreational and
cultural facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and
development facilities; and corporate headquarters.
Policy LU-409. Commercial uses such as retail and services should support the primary
uses of the site and be architecturally and functionally integrated into the development.
Policy LU-410. Commercial development, excluding big-box, may be a primary use in a
Commercial/Office/Residential designation, if:
1) It provides significant economic value to the City;
2) It is sited in conjunction with small-scale, multiple businesses in a “business district;”
3) It is designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR; and
4) It is part of a proposed master plan development.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 68 of 76
Policy LU-411. Individual properties may have a single use if they can be developed at
the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR designation
Commercial/Office/Residential project, or if proposed as part of a phased development
and multi-parcel proposal that includes a mix of uses.
Policy LU-412. Structured parking should be required. If lack of financial feasibility
can be demonstrated at the time of the COR development, phased structured parking
should be accommodated in the proposed master plan.
Policy LU-413. Sites that have significant limitations on redevelopment due to
environmental, access, and/or land assembly constraints should be granted flexibility of
use combinations and development standards through the master plan process.
Policy LU-414. Private/public partnerships should be encouraged to provide
infrastructure development, transportation facilities, public uses, and amenities.
Policy LU-415. Adjacent properties within a designated COR should be combined for
master planning purposes and public review regardless of ownership.
Policy LU-416. Master plans should coordinate the mix and compatibility of uses,
residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of
gateway features, signs, circulation, transit opportunities, and phasing regardless of
ownership of individual parcels.
Policy LU-417. Maximum residential density at COR designated sites should range
between 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The same area used for commercial and office
development may also be used to calculate residential density.
Policy LU-418. Commercial/Office/Residential master plans should be guided by design
criteria specific to the location, context, and scale of the designated COR. COR Design
Guidelines should fully integrate signage, building height, bulk, setbacks, landscaping,
and parking considerations for the various components of each proposed project within
the COR development.
Policy LU-419. Internally, Commercial/Office/Residential developments should be
primarily pedestrian-oriented. Internal site circulation of vehicles should be separated
from pedestrians wherever feasible by dedicated walkways.
Policy LU-420. Primary vehicular access to COR development should be from principal
arterials. Internal streets should be sized hierarchically. Curb cuts should not conflict
with pedestrian routes, if possible.
Policy LU-421. Commercial/Office/Residential developments should have a
combination of internal and external site design features, such as:
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 69 of 76
1) Public plazas;
2) Prominent architectural features;
3) Public access to natural features or views;
4) Distinctive focal features;
5) Indication of the function as a gateway, if appropriate;
6) Structured parking; and
7) Other features meeting the spirit and intent of the COR designation.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 70 of 76
COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Commercial Neighborhood designation is to
provide small scale, low-intensity commercial areas located within neighborhoods
primarily for the convenience of residents who live nearby. Uses should be those that
provide goods and services. In addition, a limited amount of residential opportunities
should be provided.
Objective LU-WWW: Commercial Neighborhood designated areas are intended to
reduce traffic volumes, permit small-scale business uses, such as commercial/retail,
professional office, and services that serve the personal needs of the immediate
population in surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LU-422. The Commercial Neighborhood designation should be implemented by
Commercial Neighborhood zoning.
Policy LU-423. Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should be located:
1) Within one-quarter mile of existing and planned residential areas;
2) To the extent possible, outside of the trade areas of other small-scale commercial uses
offering comparable goods and services; and
3) Contiguous to a street no smaller than those classified at the collector level.
Policy LU-424. Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should not increase in scale
or size to the point of changing the character of the nearby residential neighborhood.
Policy LU-425. The small-scale uses of Commercial Neighborhood designated areas
should not increase in intensity so that the character of the commercial area or that of the
nearby residential area is changed.
Policy LU-426. A mix of uses (e.g. convenience retail, consumer services, offices,
residential) should be encouraged in small-scale commercial developments within
Commercial Neighborhood designated areas.
Policy LU-427. Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should consist primarily of
retail and/or service uses.
Policy LU-428. Products and services related to large-scale motorized machinery,
vehicles, or equipment should not be allowed in Commercial Neighborhood designated
areas. Nor should uses that result in emissions, noise, or other potential nuisance
conditions be allowed in such areas.
Policy LU-429. Residential uses should be located above the ground floor, limited to no
more than four units per structure and should be secondary to retail and services uses.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 71 of 76
Policy LU-430. Commercial structures in Commercial Neighborhood designated areas
should be compatible with nearby residential areas in height, frontyardfront yard
setbacks, lot coverage, building design, and use.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 72 of 76
XI. EMPLOYMENT AREAS
Goal: Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial, high technology, office, and
commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a
strengthening of Renton’s employment base.
Discussion: These policies are designed to ensure that Renton will have adequate
reserves of land and appropriate use designations to further its economic development
efforts. Adequate land is necessary to attract new businesses in an effort to expand and
diversify, and stabilize the employment base. There are two Employment Area Land Use
Designations:
1) Employment Area – Industrial
2) Employment Area – Valley
Flexibility is encouraged in the Employment Areas by allowing a range of uses and
multiple users on sites. Research and development businesses may need to evolve into
production and distribution facilities as products are developed and receive approval for
marketing. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate
creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses.
Objective LU-XXX: Encourage economic growth resulting in greater diversity and
stability in the employment and tax bases by providing adequate land capacity through
zoning amounts of land to meet the needs of future employers.
Policy LU-431. The City should endeavor to expand its present economic base,
emphasizing new technologies, research and development facilities, science parks, and
high-technology centers, and supporting commercial and office land uses.
Policy LU-432. In each employment designation, an appropriate mix of commercial,
office, light industrial, and industrial uses should be supported. The mix will vary
depending on the employment area emphasis.
Policy LU-433. Encourage flexibility in use and reuse of existing, conforming structures
to allow business to evolve in response to market and production requirements.
Policy LU-434. Support location of commercial and service uses in proximity to office
or industrial uses to develop nodes of employment supported by services.
Objective LU-YYY: Promote the development of low impact, light industrial uses,
particularly those within the high-technology category, in Employment Area-Valley and
Employment Area-Industrial designations where potentially adverse impacts can be
mitigated.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 73 of 76
Policy LU-435. Site planning review should ensure that light industrial uses are neither
intrusive nor adversely affected by other uses nearby.
EMPLOYMENT AREA-INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: The Employment Area-Industrial designation is intended to provide
continued opportunity for manufacturing and industrial uses that create a strong
employment base in the City.
Discussion: Although location is an important factor for all types of development, it is
especially critical for industrial development. Industries need good access in areas with
low traffic volumes. As the City becomes more urban, they need assurance that
incompatible uses will not be allowed that could eventually force them to relocate. Other
uses, especially residential, also want to ensure that industries do not impact their
neighborhoods with noise, traffic, and other nuisances and hazards. For these reasons,
although commercial areas may see more diversity and mixing of uses, industrial areas
will remain somewhat isolated from other uses.
Objective LU-ZZZ: Sustain industrial areas that function as integrated employment
activity areas and include a core of industrial uses and other related businesses and
services, transit facilities, and amenities.
Policy LU-436. The primary use in the Employment Area - Industrial designation should
be industrial.
Policy LU-437. A mix of offices, light industrial, warehousing, and manufacturing
should be encouraged in the Employment Area-Industrial classification, with conditions
as appropriate.
Policy LU-438. Industrial uses with a synergistic relationship should be encouraged to
locate in close proximity to one another.
Policy LU-439. Industrial parks that provide space for several related or unrelated, but
compatible users should be encouraged to:
1) Include more than one industrial use organized into a single development;
2) Share facilities such as parking, transit facilities, recreation facilities, and amenities;
3) Include properties in more than one ownership;
4) Locate in areas with adequate regional access to minimize their impacts on the local
street network; and
5) Organize the site plan to place building fronts to the street with service and parking
screened from the front.
Policy LU-440. Existing industrial activities may create noise, chemicals, odors, or other
potentially noxious off-site impacts. Within the Employment Area-Industrial designation
existing industrial activities should be protected. Although the designation allows a wide
range and mix of uses, new businesses that would be impacted by pre-existing industrial
activities should be discouraged.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 74 of 76
Policy LU-441. When more intensive new uses are proposed for locations in close
proximity to less intensive existing uses, the responsibility for mitigating any adverse
impacts should be the responsibility of the new use.
Policy LU-442. Off-site impacts from industrial development such as noise, odors, light
and glare, surface and ground water pollution, and air quality should be controlled
through setbacks, landscaping, screening and/or fencing, drainage controls,
environmental mitigation, and other techniques.
Policy LU-443. Light industrial uses that result in noise or odors, should be located in
the Employment Area-Industrial designation.
EMPLOYMENT AREA-VALLEY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Employment Area-Valley designation is to
allow the gradual transition of the Valley from traditional industrial and warehousing
uses to more intensive retail service and office activities. The intent is to allow these new
activities without making industrial uses non-conforming and without restricting the
ability of existing businesses to expand.
Objective LU-AAAA: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including
commercial, office, and industrial development to support the economic development of
the City of Renton.
Policy LU-444. Develop the Green River Valley (“The Valley”) and the Black River
Valley (located between Sunset Blvd and SW Grady Way) areas as places for a range and
variety of commercial, office, and industrial.
Policy LU-445. Non-employment-based uses, such as residential, are prohibited in the
Employment Area - Valley.
Policy LU-446. Multi-story office uses should be located in areas most likely to be
served by future multi-modal transportation opportunities. A greater emphasis on public
amenities is appropriate for this type of use.
Policy LU-447. Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site
utilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including:
1) Shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities;
2) An improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops;
and
3) An opportunity to provide support services (e.g. copy center, coffee shop or lunch
facilities, express mail services) for nearby development that otherwise might not
exist.
Policy LU-448. Uses such as research, design, and development facilities should be
allowed in office designations and industrial designations when potential adverse impacts
to surrounding uses can be mitigated.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 75 of 76
Policy LU-449. Recognize viable existing and allow new industrial uses in the Valley,
while promoting the gradual transition of uses on sites with good access and visibility to
more intensive commercial and office use.
Objective LU-BBBB: Provide flexibility in the regulatory processes by allowing a
variety of zoning designations in the Employment Area-Valley designation.
Policy LU-450. Changes from one zone to another should be considered to achieve a
balance of uses that substantially improves the City’s economic / employment base.
Factors such as increasing the City’s tax base, improving efficiency in the use of the land,
and the ability of a proposed land use to mitigate potential adverse land use impacts
should be considered.
Policy LU-451. Commercial Arterial (CA) should be supported only when the proposed
commercial use has access to SW 43rd Street, and/or East Valley Road south of SW 27th
Street or is located north of I-405 and south of 10th Avenue SW and the area under
consideration is part of a designation totaling over 5 acres (acreage may be in separate
ownerships).
Policy LU-452. Zoning supporting industrial uses should be established when a mix or
wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site.
Policy LU-453. Properties lying between SR-167 and East Valley Road from SW 22nd
Street to SW 41st Street should not be granted an industrial zone classification that is
more intensive than Light Industrial in order to avoid the potential for degradation of the
high visibility SR 167 corridor.
Policy LU-454. Commercial Office zoning should be supported where a site has high
visibility, particularly in those portions of the Valley that are gateways and/or along the I-
405 and SR 167 corridors, where larger sites can accommodate more intensive uses, and
where sites can take advantage of existing and/or future multi-modal transportation
opportunities.
Objective LU-CCCC: Ensure quality development in Employment Area-Valley.
Policy LU-455. Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development
within the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of
land uses (Refer to the Community Design Element).
Policy LU-456. Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged.
Incentives should be offered to encourage shared parking.
Policy LU-457. Site design for office uses and commercial, and mixed-use
developments should consider ways of improving transit ridership through siting,
locating of pedestrian amenities, walkways, parking, etc.
Policy LU-458. Site plan review should be required for all new projects in the
Employment Area-Valley pursuant to thresholds established in the City’s development
regulations.
Policy LU-459. New development, or site redevelopment, should conform to
development standards that include scale of building, building façade treatment to reduce
perception of bulk, relationship between buildings, and landscaping.
Adopted 11/01/04
Page 76 of 76
4It
bit
ririllitlY ‘44*-T:--7 ,-.41.,4:17 :PINIP: :: '11__i
. 1 .
i INV i t .
ill _-:-:-_-:-_---K=:=K---i-:=K=u artgliti PPii k
__:::_____::::::::::::_:::::::_ mr, 1 L;
(
-:::---------------- AN . . ir.11 i
_,,i,:-_--::::_:-:-: 1,,,,W 1„4
3
1 .1.014. ,v)rei
i .10F . ..
zt
AL A
4pi 411&„, ,. lilli,( ,:,: W...„
r.,, 1. a
IN i 0 4 „1/4,. 444
411111:°
VI -----------------------------------------------------------
Ng"
III
.•,,,
L _________________ _ _____ _ __.::::_:_.:::::::::Es-_-::::::::-:.:::: 4,11742 az, iwgmh:z,
MI -__K----:-:-----_-:=:::-.-_---.-_-:--_-:-.7--_--i=::::----1:--:=7---::: :- 4.--....-mop l'ifttr. :• . . P.
:
::::---frfff--=---:------- 4.13" -- ' tii, „'Alpiwc, ' i I
milt , ==_=_____-_=_-_=_-_-_-_:_=_=_=_=_=_==____ _-_-_,===__ mon=au i i
L \ -_-_-_____-__-:-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
PIRO\ lip'"--*-11 irti., ,,mil
ce
1
...
AL
logos ---_-----_:---- -- -----=------------=;-i:-:;---z---:;:------ \ 1 •
331123 NI
liffemioiiOil— CAVinatimincl
IL
111178111i1IVIAN*,, ‘ ------:-:::-----:::-----:_ _75:111Ei-_=="_=:--- 111111 Ai_ 'lei. "rRi T.\
ill
uppinpre P44/Q1-fr-k ', -"------=------,---,----,,,,,,,- it. .. d Amy. lirmin-t1 timmk,..TIE- 16..
ii
woe' II , !spivetria.. , . --, iiiw'\., purIgiirfrik-Fins
, Ma
,, , im. s III noll MIL
if.41 OFIPIL---'---FiLit&-**'' "Patilrill -
la
174: . IliNtraatibrall si 1 ,,,IIININI, 1 1.%:%' ' tlii% PiPl ‘wiojer
PM trirriMI la For '' \ 11"1.16611111141KRIMI ; . 1
VA iljilif6 1111"V34. '' "1 "IP 621° rill I
Mil
all 0 ..,-....iri AR •• !
gat
"IIIIME. Itaiii r"1"E.ALI "'",rell , .ktml
r/ 7-44. ,...' AFitii.M. LIIIi.%4k tEill I AO"'et-Lemb ..192 i-B Mt , , 1 i
v.haffrhOPOLINI.1 4:iiiti ' rorFerk p „ .„ ,,.," im. j
• Julin—ii ,. ,
,iprokiii , ..,,,u.,, .7.....:(1: 7ippratris"•',,;,li: Ar /7; .ri 1P11-
9.11111.1154-116 -6 1'""t ' \411111111" //III I Othi,.. ,,,NIAMMIA.. 1 WrAt ' IIIII1
1,toitio, \ \ 41.111mlftkini itiAk . „ a
__ --- '•‘41/7X4 erriaiP
IP 10
4.4•0. 4
Li." , li INIII
IN 11111.1 ','
PIEMMOW ill
'Lily \I \ '
, , „ Akippir ...
i PPbt ‘ ., \ .. • 1,-- .' -, .... , - 11111A1101, . 1
, ...•' ,
,--/... % Afii 0 i,?.. .i 4"1,4 - 44 ---
41 Iii :tr- ‘...._,..:-mammon--cd,pz—riairrri 444111010.6 _.,.,,-..-- 494.604
eoil. z , -...,....,.... „
,......-
ota. r......,,,,
1 nil i iiii ii ha.,--4ffsffliErA=w-arr--4 .
II
1 ,F„ , !NPR ,-; mcren `in":"' •
IIII kkg J5-.„,.., CM il 11. hk P5111T r"---17
•111,
SIL / i
(
„co I
ippill t":7:' i - 11 1 wedhsiiIK kW - °Wel ,,..,,w
. . ,
10,11-111211prderfah. ., : *
I Iii ,
04, „,
' 4"
. . . .,
, , , .,„ 1,
. WI ari ' ',.1; .,.. i t'
iiiir.--- .7_,Ptei;
'DESIRE
iiiivr .7.;.......1 . -.. Pl., I law.... ..li.gvam.
ti 1
1111 II A itti whim w bicir.,_wer—goi
...ilk _______Nsq
a II , ,,...... okft it...
iii
MI A - 'PM ilv. .0" ;
II-
in lauhien St IMO M
i 11 II ril aril
•
t, LAKE
II
1 "°""i . 1i. i i II i•
pr-
.:
I_ .-) E _
i -
1111117111111 LAKE YOUNGS -------- ;.
MI
II : r
Jr. Nrai,...
11111W NM
p214414MP' m' glifFair 1a t
moll r tank I: wrniti ' s/ f •illi 4 0 1 I -:-- 801 :,
..... - g11111111111m, A-diotramaiziWwimi -. ,- gg... „........
amid
RESIDENTIAL
City of Renton NE Residential Low Density EMPLOYMENT AREA DESIGNATIONSS5
Employment Area-Industrial
Residential Single Family Employment Area-Valley
Comprehensive Plan Residential Medium Density
= Residential Multi-Farnily
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS
Land Use Nlap ... Commercial Neighborhood
CENTER DESIGNATIONS 11111 Commercial/Office/Residential
1111 Center Village 1111 Commercial Corridor
Y
O EDNSP im Urban Center Downtown
v '4°1 —.-- City Limits
+ + P/B/PW Technical Services IIIII Urban Center-North
•••••—••••••• Urban Growth Boundary
'1111 _., . R. MacOnie, D. Visneski
--y ORDINANCE NO . 5228
4'Arr 0 Printed November 2006
Effective : 12/6/2006
ATTACHMENT E
XI-1
ATTACHMENT E
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
GOALS
1. Contribute to a balanced multi-modal transportation system through reasonable, planned,
economically feasible arterial improvements that enhance HOV and transit operations,
support adopted land use plans, protect or improve business access, and protect Renton's
neighborhoods.
2. Maximize the use of transit in Renton by providing step-by-step transit improvements to
produce regionally linked and locally oriented transit services and facilities needed to serve
travel demand generated by Renton residents and businesses.
3. Increase the person-carrying capacity of the Renton arterial system by the construction of
improvements and the implementation of actions that facilitate the flow of HOVs into, out of,
and through Renton.
4. Maintain, enhance, and increase pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing both safe and
convenient routes and storage for the commuting and recreating public.
5. Encourage and facilitate the reduction of commute and other trips made via single occupant
vehicles.
6. Create efficiently functioning air transportation facilities that are responsibly integrated with
the City's transportation system and land use pattern.
7. Maintain and improve truck and freight rail access to Renton industrial areas, and integrate
freight transportation needs into Renton's multi-modal transportation system.
8. Develop a funding and implementation program for needed transportation improvements
supporting adopted land use policies, that distributes transportation costs equitably between
public agencies and private development.
9. Develop a transportation system that contributes to the attainment and maintenance of
regional air and water quality standards within the City of Renton, and complies with
regional, state, and Federal air water quality standards, and preserves/protects natural
resources.
10. Develop and maintain relationships between Renton and other agencies and local
jurisdictions for cooperative planning of common transportation improvements, and
discussion of transportation-related interests.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... XI-6
General Policies .......................................................................................................................................... XI-7
Growth Management Act Requirements ..................................................................................................... XI-7
Street Network ................................................................................................................................................ XI-8
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-8
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-8
Inventory of Existing Streets ...................................................................................................................... XI-10
Street System Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... XI-12
Existing Street Functional Classifications .................................................................................................. XI-12
Traffic Volumes and Forecasts ................................................................................................................... XI-12
Level of Service Policy ............................................................................................................................... XI-19
Level Of Service Standard .......................................................................................................................... XI-20
Arterial Plan ................................................................................................................................................ XI-22
Transit ............................................................................................................................................................. XI-29
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-29
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-29
Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................................................. XI-30
Local Access ............................................................................................................................................... XI-30
Eastside Connections .................................................................................................................................. XI-31
South King County Connections ................................................................................................................ XI-31
East-West Connections ............................................................................................................................... XI-31
Downtown Transit Center ........................................................................................................................... XI-34
Custom Bus Service .......................................................................................................................... XI-34
Park-and-Ride Facilities ................................................................................................................. XI-34
Future Regional Accessibility ..................................................................................................................... XI-34
Transit Plan ................................................................................................................................................. XI-34
Level of Service .......................................................................................................................................... XI-36
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) .................................................................................................................... XI-38
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-38
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-38
Existing HOV Facilities .............................................................................................................................. XI-38
HOV Plan .................................................................................................................................................... XI-39
Level of Service .......................................................................................................................................... XI-42
Non-Motorized Transportation ....................................................................................................................... XI-43
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-43
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-43
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................. XI-44
Neighborhood and Regional Access ........................................................................................................... XI-46
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan ........................................................................................................ XI-46
Transportation Demand Management/ Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) ............................................ XI-49
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-49
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-49
Existing Parking Supply and Demand ........................................................................................................ XI-50
Parking Policy Review ................................................................................................................................ XI-52
Employers' Mode Split ................................................................................................................................ XI-52
TDM/CTR Programs .................................................................................................................................. XI-52
ATTACHMENT E
XI-3
Parking Management Regulations .............................................................................................................. XI-53
Airport ............................................................................................................................................................. XI-53
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-53
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-53
Airport Facilities ......................................................................................................................................... XI-54
Airport Activities ........................................................................................................................................ XI-54
Airport Master Plan Relevant Documents .................................................................................................. XI-54
Airport Master Plan Implementation .......................................................................................................... XI-55
Freight ............................................................................................................................................................. XI-55
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-55
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-56
Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................................... XI-56
Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users .................................................................................. XI-58
Regional Accessibility ................................................................................................................................ XI-59
Financing and Implementation ....................................................................................................................... XI-60
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-60
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-61
Transportation Program Costs .................................................................................................................... XI-61
Inventory of Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................... XI-61
Funding Program ........................................................................................................................................ XI-64
Funding Assessment ................................................................................................................................... XI-71
Mitigation Process ...................................................................................................................................... XI-72
Concurrency Management System ............................................................................................................. XI-74
Environmental and Natural Resources ............................................................................................................ XI-75
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-75
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-75
Air Quality -- Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................ XI-76
Improving Water Quality ............................................................................................................................ XI-76
Intergovernmental Coordination ..................................................................................................................... XI-76
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... XI-77
Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI-77
Current Coordination Activities .................................................................................................................. XI-77
Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions .............................................................................................................. XI-79
Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan ................................................................................................... XI-79
Strategies to Address Inconsistencies ......................................................................................................... XI-79
Ongoing Transportation Plan Work ................................................................................................................ XI-77
ATTACHMENT E
XI-4
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Existing Street/Highway System
Figure 1-2 Arterial System Characteristics
Figure 1-3 Arterial System Functional Classifications
Figure 1-4 2000 Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 1-5 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 1-6 Renton Arterial Plan
Figure 1-7 Arterial Plan Improvements
Figure 2-1 Existing Transit Service
Figure 2-2 Regional Transit System
Figure 2-3 Renton Transit Plan
Figure 3-1 Renton HOV Plan
Figure 4-1 Existing Non-Motorized Facilities
Figure 5-1 Downtown Core Existing Parking Summary 2001
Figure 7-1 Truck Routes
ATTACHMENT E
XI-5
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Renton Arterial Plan
Table 4.1 Proposed Bicycle Routes
Table 5.1 Central Subarea Parking Summary
Table 8.1 20-Year (Transportation Program Cost
Table 8.2 Source of Transportation Funds
Table 8.3 City of Renton Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2005-2010
ATTACHMENT E
XI-6
SUMMARY
The Transportation Element of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan serves several purposes. In addition to meeting
the State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for a transportation element, it assists the City in
coordinating transportation planning with land use planning and adequately serving existing and future
residential and employment growth. The Transportation Element, sometimes called a Transportation Plan, also
provides direction on coordinating the development of a multi-modal system, which is a system that
accommodates various modes of transportation. Finally, the transportation element coordinates transportation
projects with other relevant projects in adjacent jurisdictions and the region. This coordination is an important
element in creating an effective system and in competing for transportation funding.
The goal of the Renton Transportation Element is to provide "a balanced multi-modal transportation system that
will support land use patterns, and adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth
within the City." (A multi-modal system is defined as one which provides various choices of transportation for
the public such as automobiles, buses, rail, transit, bicycles, walking.)
The main objective guiding the development of the Transportation Element is to be consistent with the City of
Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies, the State’s Growth Management Act, County-wide Planning Policies, and
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) legislation.
Another key objective of the Transportation Element is to “coordinate land use and transportation planning.”
This is a requirement of the State’s Growth Management Act. The Transportation Element must also be
coordinated with the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) VISION 2020 and Destination 2030 (the adopted
long-range growth and transportation strategy for the Central Puget Sound area –– King, Kitsap, Pierce, and
Snohomish counties).
A companion regional document is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), also produced by the PSRC,
which specifically addresses regional transportation and how jurisdictional transportation plans fit within the
regional context. This City of Renton Transportation Element is consistent with GMA, VISION 2020,
Destination 2030, and the MTP.
The Comprehensive Plan (and Transportation Element) was adopted on February 20, 1995. Subsequent
transportation planning work and enactment of development regulations that are consistent with, and help
implement, the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element have resulted in amendments
(December 8, 1997, July 27, 1998, August 14, 2000, and August 13, 2001) to the Comprehensive Plan (and
Transportation Element). Further transportation planning work by the City has resulted in the 2004
amendments, which are incorporated in this Transportation Element.
As noted above, the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to create a desirable land use pattern and serve
land uses with a multi-modal transportation system. This Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
comprises a set of framework transportation policies to support Renton’s land use Vision and a more detailed
and technical plan for implementation of the framework policies. The Transportation Element encompasses
several chapters, including Street Network, Transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), Non-Motorized
Transportation, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR), Airport, Freight,
Financing and Implementation, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Intergovernmental Coordination.
Some of the transportation policies apply to specific chapters; the policies compiled below apply to all of the
chapters.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-7
General Policies
Policy T-1. Land use plans and regulations should
be used to guide development of the Transportation
Element for the City.
Policy T-2. Transportation improvements should
support land use plans.
Policy T-3. Transportation plans should be phased
concurrently with growth.
Policy T-4. Adequate transportation facilities and
services should be in place at the time of occupancy
or an adopted strategy must be in place to provide
those facilities within six years of the approval of
new development.
Policy T-5. Land use and transportation plans
should be consistent so that land use and adjacent
transportation facilities are compatible with each
other. Land use capacity/forecast assumptions used
in capacity/forecast modeling should be used in
estimating travel demand.
Policy T-6. Land use patterns should support
transit and non-motorized modes of travel.
Policy T-7. The disruptive impacts of traffic
related to centers and employment areas should be
reduced.
(In this context, disruptive impacts are primarily traffic. They could be mitigated by implementing programs,
such as transportation management programs implemented through cooperative agreements at the work place,
flexible work hours, and/or sub-area planning policies supporting increased density.)
Increased land use densities and a balance of land use mixes in an urban setting will result in fewer and shorter
vehicle trips. As people begin to live closer to employment and shopping, they will no longer need to drive to
these facilities and they will be able to link trips, resulting in fewer vehicle trips.
In addition to the Transportation-Land Use interaction, another issue that pervades many of the chapters of the
Transportation Element is that of parking. The location and supply of parking is an integral part of the local
transportation system. Inadequate parking can increase congestion on streets as people circle and hunt for
available spaces. Too much parking is an inefficient use of land and can deter transit use. A proper balance
needs to be achieved between parking supply and demand. Satellite parking and shuttle services and collective
structured parking are potential methods for increasing the parking supply. Note: Any references in this
document to downtown parking restrictions and/or removal apply only to commuter/employee parking and not
to business patron/customer parking.
Growth Management Act Requirements
The Growth Management Act specifies the following minimum requirements for information that is to be
included in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan:
1. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;
2. Facilities and service needs, including:
a. An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit routing,
to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning;
b. Level of service standards for the transportation system to serve as a gauge to judge performance
of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated, and adopted Level of Service
(LOS) policy and/or standards for state facilities shall be stated in local transportation plans.
c. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are
below an established LOS standard;
ATTACHMENT E
XI-8
d. Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information
on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth;
e. Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to meet
current and future demands;
3. Demand Management Strategies
4. Finance, including:
a. An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources;
b. A multi-year financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the
appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program
required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities;
c. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding
will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that LOS standards will be
met;
5. Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation
plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions.
STREET NETWORK
Traffic generated by employment centers, regional pass-through traffic using local streets, and truck traffic all
contribute to congestion and reduced accessibility within the City of Renton. In resolving traffic flow problems,
a number of choices will need to be made. In some cases, increasing traffic flows only increase congestion on
local streets or impact pedestrians, yet if traffic flows are reduced accessibility can be compromised.
Alternately, if the local street system is efficient and not congested it will attract increased regional traffic.
The objectives and policies in the Street Network chapter are intended to reduce the amount of traffic that has
neither an origin nor destination in the City of Renton while at the same time providing reasonable levels of
traffic flow and accessibility on the local street system. These objectives and policies also address issues related
to the street network as a system, the physical design of individual roadways, traffic flow, and traffic operations
control.
The Street Network Chapter contains a detailed review of the City of Renton’s street system – including
existing functional classifications as well as a description of Renton’s Arterial Plan. The Street Network
Chapter also contains discussion of the Level of Service criteria used to judge performance of the system. (The
service levels were developed in conjunction with King County adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies
and other local jurisdictions.)
Objectives
The Street Network Chapter is based on the following objective:
T-A: Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable vehicular circulation throughout the City
while enhancing the safety and function of the local transportation system.
Policies
ATTACHMENT E
XI-9
Policy T-8. Each street in the City should be
assigned a functional classification based on factors
including traffic volumes, type of service provided,
land use, and preservation of neighborhoods.
Policy T-9. Streets and pedestrian paths in
residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an
interconnecting network that serves local traffic and
facilitates pedestrian circulation.
Policy T-9.1. Street vacations should be supported
when:
• The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed
for future public use;
• The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed
for the interconnection of the roadway system;
• The abutting property owners have
demonstrated a need for the street vacation;
and,
• The resultant road configuration, after the street
vacation, conforms to adopted City plans.
Policy T-9.2. Street vacations should only be
supported in Downtown and neighborhoods that
have developed around a traditional grid system
when the resultant road configuration after the
street vacation does not significantly interrupt the
function of the overall grid system.
Policy T-10. Street standards should continue to be
based on functional classification, land use
objectives, and HOV/transit/non-motorized facility
needs. (The street standards should be coordinated
with the objectives and policies of the Community
Design Element.)
Policy T-11. A level of service should be
maintained that: maximizes mobility by
emphasizing transit and HOV improvements; is
coordinated with level of service standards of
adjacent jurisdictions; and meets State requirements
under GMA and concurrency.
Policy T-12. Traffic flow on and accessibility to
arterial streets should be managed to maximize
person-carrying capacity.
Policy T-13. Provide a balance between protecting
neighborhoods from increased through traffic while
maintaining access to neighborhoods.
Policy T-14. Proactively work with the state and
neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on
regional transportation systems and to reduce
regional traffic on local streets.
Policy T-15. Develop strategies to reduce adverse
traffic impacts on local areas. (areas of the City
that require this type of intervention should be
identified and addressed through the sub-area
planning process, neighborhood plans, or traffic
mitigation programs that are implemented through
development review.)
Policy T-16. Access management, such as
restricting left turns and excessive use of
driveways, should be coordinated with design
standards and land use in order to enhance public
safety and preserve traffic carrying capacity.
(Also see related policies in the HOV, Transit, Non-
motorized and Freight sections of this Element and
of the Community Design Element.)
ATTACHMENT E
XI-10
Inventory of Existing Streets
The existing (2003) street/highway system serving Renton is shown in Figure 1-1. The system includes two
freeways: Interstate-405 and State Route-167 (the "Valley Freeway"). Interstate 405 provides connections to
the Eastside and Snohomish County to the north, and to I-5 and the Sea-Tac Airport area to the south. The
Valley Freeway extends south from I-405 to Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup.
In addition to the freeways, Renton is served by several other state highways, including SR-900 (Sunset
Boulevard), SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway), SR-515 (Benson Highway), and SR-167 (Rainier Avenue).
Each of these state highways are integral elements of Renton's internal arterial system. In addition, SR-900
provides external connections to Issaquah on the east and to the Boeing Field area and I-5 on the west. SR-
169 connects Renton to SR-18 and southeast King County, SR-515 provides the main arterial connection to
the unincorporated Soos Creek area, and the Rainier Avenue section of SR-167 connects Renton with south
Seattle.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-11
FIGURE 1-1
RENTON STREET/HIGHWAY SYSTEM
ATTACHMENT E
XI-12
Six routes, I-405, SR-167, SR-900, SR-169, SR-515, and SR-167, converge in central Renton within a half
mile radius of each other. This close proximity results in a complex traffic flow, as regional and local trips
interact within a relatively short distance.
Other key arterials that tie together the Renton street system include Grady Way and S.W. 43rd Street in the
Valley, Talbot Road and Puget Drive in southeast Renton, Park Avenue and Park Drive, Logan Avenue, and
Airport Way in Central Renton, and 3rd Street / 4th Street, Duvall, Union, and Edmonds Avenues in East
Renton. These arterials, with numerous other arterial streets, link commercial, industrial, and residential
neighborhoods to the freeways and state highways. Within neighborhoods, local access streets provide
internal circulation and connections to the arterials.
Street System Characteristics
Physical and traffic control characteristics of the Renton street system, including the location of traffic signals
and one-way streets, and the number of lanes on arterial street segments, are shown in Figure 1-2.
Existing Street Functional Classifications
The purpose of functional classifications is threefold: i) to identify appropriate uses for Renton streets, ii) to
establish eligibility for road improvement funding from various sources, and iii) to define appropriate street
design standards.
The arterial street functional classifications specified by the City of Renton include "Principal Arterial,"
"Minor Arterial," and "Collector Arterial" classifications. The adopted classifications in Renton, and the
surrounding annexation areas of unincorporated King County, and on several roadways in adjacent City of
Newcastle are shown in Figure 1-3.
“Principal Arterials” are streets and highways that connect major intra-city activity centers, have primarily
high traffic volumes that travel at relatively fast vehicle speeds, and therefore, have less emphasis on land use
access. Grady Way in south central Renton and N.E. 3rd/4th Street in East Renton are examples of principal
arterials.
“Minor Arterials” are streets that provide links between principal arterials and collector arterials, and carry
moderately high traffic volumes at less vehicle speed than on principal arterials. These arterials also connect
intra-city activity centers with some emphasis on land use access. Southwest 7th Street in west central Renton
and Union Avenue in northeast Renton are examples of minor arterials.
“Collector Arterials” are streets that distribute traffic between principal and minor arterials and local access
streets. Collector arterials include streets that provide major traffic circulation with more emphasis on land
use access within commercial and industrial areas, and residential neighborhoods. East Valley Road in
southwest Renton and N.E. 12th Street in northeast Renton are examples of collector arterials.
Local access streets include all public streets not classified as principal, minor, or collector arterials. Local
access streets primarily provide direct access to abutting land uses and are to be designed to discourage use by
through traffic. These streets are identified by default on Figure 1-3 and are not listed in the legend.
Traffic Volumes and Forecasts
Existing (2000) and forecasted 2022* traffic volumes have been analyzed to reflect: i) latest regional and
Renton land use modifications ii) latest regional transportation plans, and Renton Arterial, HOV and transit
plans; iii) latest Renton mode split assumptions; and, iv) refinements to the City of Renton transportation
model.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-13
*NOTE: Renton’s transportation model utilizes regional land use data and trip tables provided by the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for the horizon years 2000 to 2020. For the 2022 traffic volume forecast, a
linear growth rate was calculated (from 2000 to 2020) and then applied to the 2020 traffic volumes to obtain
2022 volume forecasts.
Arterial Traffic Volumes
In order to show the overall level and pattern of utilization of the Renton street/highway system, 2000 and
2022 daily two-way traffic volumes were compiled (see Figures 1-4 and 1-5). The 2022 volumes reflect a
freeway/arterial network comprised of facilities existing in 2000 and the following arterial and HOV
improvements which are assumed to be implemented by 2022.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-14
FIGURE 1-2
ARTERIAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
ATTACHMENT E
XI-15
FIGURE 1-3
ARTERIAL SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
ATTACHMENT E
XI-16
FIGURE 1-4
2000 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ATTACHMENT E
XI-17
FIGURE 1-5
2022 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ATTACHMENT E
XI-18
Arterial improvements:
• Puget Drive Southeast – Benson Road to 116th Avenue Southeast
• Southwest 27th /Strander Boulevard Connection – Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to SR-181
• Duvall Avenue Northeast – Sunset Boulevard to City Limits
• Widen Bronson Way – South 2nd Street to Sunset Boulevard
• Lake Washington Boulevard – Park Drive to Coulon Park
• Oakesdale Avenue – Monster Road to SR-900
• South Grady Way/ Rainier Avenue South – Intersection Improvements
• Northeast 44th Street – Ripley Lane to Lake Washington Boulevard N.E.
• SR-167 / East Valley Road Off-Ramp
• NE 3rd Street – Sunset Boulevard to Edmonds Avenue N.E.
HOV improvements:
• Full HOV interchange at I-405 / Northeast 44th Street
• Add HOV lanes on I-5 – Seattle CBD to Tacoma
• I-405 HOV Direct Access at Park Drive or North 8th Street
• Half or full HOV interchange at I-405/Benson Road or Talbot Road (SR-515) and HOV lanes on
SR-515 or Benson Road South from the new HOV interchange to Puget Drive
• Half HOV interchange at SR-167/S.W. 27th Street and HOV lanes on S.W. 27th Street from SR-
167 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
• HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on SR-169 – Sunset Boulevard to east city limits
• HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on N.E. 3rd / N.E. 4th Street – I-405 to Monroe Avenue
Northeast
• Transit Lane –South Grady Way to South Third Street
High-volume arterial corridors include Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, each with over 30,000 vehicles per
day (vpd), and Renton Avenue, North Park Drive-Sunset Boulevard Northeast, Northeast 3rd Street/4th Street,
Talbot Road South, Southwest 43rd Street and South Grady Way-Main Avenue South, each carrying over
20,000 vpd (volume numbers in 2000).
The forecasted 2022 volumes show significant increases over 2000 volumes. On major arterial corridors,
volumes are forecasted to increase on the order of 40% - 100% over the 22-year period. The highest-volume
arterial corridor in 2022 is Rainier Avenue, with forecasted daily volumes of 20,000—66,000 through
Renton. Maple Valley Highway (SR169) also has forecasted volumes in excess of 40,000 vpd. Other high-
volume arterials with forecasted volumes in excess of 30,000 vpd are listed below:
South Grady Way
Airport Way/Logan Avenue NE 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street
North Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard
Sunset Boulevard North (west of I-405)
S/ 43rd Street / South Carr Road/S.E. 176th Street/ Petrovitsky Road
Traffic volumes on the freeway system are also forecasted to increase significantly by 2022, with daily
volumes of over 200,000 on most segments of I-405 and over 120,000 on SR-167 (Valley Freeway) through
ATTACHMENT E
XI-19
Renton. The forecasted I-405 volumes are equivalent to current volumes on I-5 at the Ship Canal Bridge,
where I-5 has eight mainline lanes plus four reversible roadway lanes (as compared to the two lanes plus an
HOV lane in each direction on I-405). The I-405 Corridor is vital for regional connections between Renton
and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that
overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability.
Level of Service Policy
Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's
degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort
includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other
vehicles and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined using letter designations -- A, B, C, D, E and F, with a
LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with
somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines
noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is
relatively uniform flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver.
Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the I-405 and SR 167 corridors,
traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton
neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway
capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets.
In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of
building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in
1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three
premises:
• Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be
solved by regional policies and plans;
• It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and
• The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel.
Renton’s LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non-
motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is
designed to achieve several objectives:
• Allow reasonable development to occur;
• Encourage a regionally-linked, locally-oriented, dynamic transportation system;
• Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County’s
adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies;
• Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and
• Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not
providing regional facilities.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-20
The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV
and transit elements of the LOS standard are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators
for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of
Renton and the region. Renton’s LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than
single intersections, and it provides a multi-modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local
policies requiring encouragement of multi-modal travel.
The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans.
This process includes the following:
• Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton;
• Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times;
• Determination of future SOV and HOV travel times for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land
Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model;
• Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intra-Renton travel time to
regional system, and regional travel time;
• Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (index) using the most recent existing travel
time data;
• Development of transit and HOV mode splits;
• Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard;
• Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local
transportation system, including State-owned facilities; and
• Selecting a plan that maintains the established LOS standard.
Other elements of the LOS implementation process include:
• Monitoring the area to re-validate transportation plans;
• Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other
environmental/coordination issues; and
• Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed).
Level Of Service Standard
A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following
demonstrates how Renton’s LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard.
A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30-
minute travel distance for SOV, HOV, and Transit as follows:
2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions
SOV HOV 2 times Transit
(includes access time)
LOS
Index
16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42*
* Rounded
ATTACHMENT E
XI-21
As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle (SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel
approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle (HOV - carpool, vanpool) could expect to
travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7
miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from
the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value
(3.4 miles in 2002) is then weighted by doubling it (to 6.8 miles) to recognize the advantage that the transit
mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger-carrying capacity.
The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard, presented in Renton’s Comprehensive
Plan adopted in 1995, was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw
data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-2010) transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS
index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and
examining the raw data, the 2002 LOS index was found to be 42. This reduction in LOS index could be
attributed to: i) reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as
a result of regional funding constraints (e.g. passage of Initiative 695); ii) limited implementation of Sound
Transit’s planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of
vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990 – 2002.
The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is
forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A
combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or
transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard.
With the 2002 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows:
2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions
SOV HOV 2 times Transit
(includes access time)
LOS
Standard
15* miles 17* miles 10* miles 42
* Rounded
This standard will require that the travel time of SOV (15) + HOV (17) + 2 T (10) or the sum of these three
modes (42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years.
The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub-Elements that are designated
for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets
2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development. To test against the LOS standard, the 2022 planned
Arterial, HOV, and Transit improvements identified later in this Transportation Element are programmed into
the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traffic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV, HOV, and
Transit* modes along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments of known distance)
including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then
converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel.
The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42.
*Other factors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access
time.
Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton’s LOS standard is provided in the
City of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-22
LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) (i.e. I-5, I-405, SR 167) have been adopted in
1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). For urban areas the adopted LOS
standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways
(non-HSS) in the Central Puget Sound region (i.e. SR-900, SR-169, SR-515) were adopted by the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 30, 2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges
from LOS E/mitigated (pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E) to the traditional LOS D. (Further
information on LOS standards for HSS and non-HSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites,
respectively.)
Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the
inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton’s city limits. These state-owned facilities have been
factored into Renton’s modeling estimates of Renton’s projected growth, and this local modeling estimate
identifies how Renton’s Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned
facilities. These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton’s city-wide travel-time based LOS
standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due
to queuing vehicles. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept
(A through F). To maintain Renton’s LOS standard Renton’s Transportation Element has identified SOV,
HOV, and transit-oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway
system.
Arterial Plan
This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in
the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal
corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as
necessary to support the multi-modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have
been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or
improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible. The
Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in
Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7.
The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials.
The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of
influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed
improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system.
(These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle Transportation
Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.)
The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element
of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit Plan and HOV
improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of
Service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2022.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-23
FIGURE 1-6
RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN
ATTACHMENT E
XI-24
TABLE 1.1
RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN
2002 – 2022 IMPROVEMENTS
1. Bronson Way – South 2nd Street to Park Avenue North arterial
improvements/bridge
rehabilitation
2. South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements
• Logan Ave N – North 6th to Garden Avenue N
• Park Avenue N – North 6th to Logan Avenue N
• North 10th Street – Logan Avenue N to Garden Avenue N
• North 8th Street – Logan Avenue N to Park Avenue N
new arterial
arterial widening
new street
new street
3. CBD Streetscape street improvements
4. Rainier Avenue – South 4th Place to South 7th Street arterial widening/RR
over crossing
replacement
5. Grady Way - Main Avenue to West City Limits arterial improvements
6. Lind Avenue Southwest - Southwest 16th to Southwest 43rd Street arterial widening
7. NE 2nd and NE 6th Street – Duvall Avenue NE to 156th Avenue SE street improvements
8. Duvall Avenue Northeast – Sunset Boulevard to East City Limits arterial widening
9. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Monster Road to SR-900 arterial widening
10. S.W. 27th Street / Strander Boulevard – SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest new arterial
11. Sunset Boulevard/Duvall Avenue NE intersection
improvements
12. Rainier Avenue –Grady Way to North City Limits arterial improvements
13. Puget Drive Southeast - Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast arterial widening
14. Benson Road – South 26th Street to South 31st Street safety improvements/
arterial widening
15. Talbot Road – Southwest 43rd to South City Limits arterial widening
16. N.E. 3rd / N.E. 4th Corridor Improvements – Sunset Boulevard to East City Limits arterial improvements
17. Mill Avenue South/Carr Road intersection
improvements
18. Lake Washington Boulevard. – Park Avenue North to Coulon Park Entrance arterial improvements
19. Park Ave. N. / Sunset Boulevard – Garden Avenue N. to Duvall Avenue N.E. safety/mobility
improvements
20. S.W. 7th Street / Lind Avenue S.W. safety improvements
21. South Renton Neighborhood Improvements street improvements
22. N.E. 8th and NE 10th Street – Union Avenue N.E. to Duvall Avenue N.E. street improvements
23. NE 4th Street/Hoquiam Avenue NE intersection
improvements
24. Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) – I-405 to East City Limits safety/mobility
improvements
OTHER JURISDICTION PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
TUKWILA:
25. West Valley Highway (SR 181)/South 156th Street intersection
improvements
26. West Valley Highway (SR 181) – I-405 to Strander Blvd. arterial improvements
27. Nelsen Place – South 156th to South 158th street improvements
KENT:
ATTACHMENT E
XI-25
28. South 196th/192nd Street Corridor (Phase III) - East Valley Highway to SR515 new arterial
29. 80th Avenue South – South 196th to South 188th arterial widening
NEWCASTLE:
30. Coal Creek Parkway (Phase 2 and 3) SE 84th Way to SE 95th Street arterial widening
31. Newcastle Way – 112th Avenue SE to 129th Avenue SE arterial widening
32. Newcastle Way / 116th Avenue SE intersection
improvements
33. 112th Avenue SE – SE 64th Street to Newcastle Way arterial widening
34. 116th Avenue SE – Newcastle Way to SE 88th Street arterial improvements
35. 112th Place SE – West City Limit to 116th Avenue SE arterial improvements
KING COUNTY:
36. Duvall Avenue NE/Coal Creek Parkway – Renton City Limits to Newcastle City
Limits (SE 95th Way)
arterial widening
37. South 192nd Street - SR-515 to 140th Avenue Southeast arterial widening
38. 116th Avenue Southeast - Renton City Limits to South 192nd Street arterial widening
39. 140th Way Avenue Southeast - SR-169 to Southeast 192nd Street arterial widening
40. Elliott Bridge – Jones Road to SR-169 bridge replacement
41. East Corridor Study – SR-169 to Northeast Fourth Street arterial widening
42. Carr Road / SE 176th / SE Petrovitsky – Lind Ave. S.W. to 116th Avenue S.E. arterial improvements
43. Carr Road / Benson Road (SR-515) intersection
improvements
44. 140th Avenue SE / SE Petrovitsky intersection
improvements
45. Trans-Valley Corridor – Southcenter Parkway to SR 515 transportation
improvements
46. Benson Road / South 31st Street intersection
improvements
WSDOT (Limited Access):
47. I-405 – I-5 to SR 167 add one lane in each
direction
48. I-405 – SR 167 to North City Limits add two lanes in each
direction
49. SR 167 – I-405 to SW 43rd Street add one lane in each
direction
50. I-405/SR 167 Interchange
• Southbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct
connection ramp
• Northbound SR 167 to Northbound I-405 construct direct
connection ramp
• Northbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct
connection ramp
51. I-405 between Lind Avenue SW and Talbot Road construct one-way
frontage road in each
direction with ramp
connections to I-405 at
Lind and Talbot
52. I-405/SR 169 Interchange
ATTACHMENT E
XI-26
• SR 169/North 3rd Street construct split-
diamond interchange
• Southbound I-405 to Eastbound SR 169 construct direct
connection ramp
53. I-405/Park Avenue N Interchange reconstruct to
accommodate I-405
widening
54. I-405/N 30th Street Interchange reconstruct to
accommodate I-405
widening
55. I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange reconstruct to
accommodate I-405
widening and future
improvements
WSDOT (City ROW)
56. SW 43rd Street – Lind Avenue SW to Talbot Road arterial widening
57. East Valley Road – SW 16th to SW 34th Street arterial realignment
58. Lind Avenue SW – Grady Way to SW 16th Street arterial widening to
accommodate frontage
road and I-405 ramps
59. Talbot Road – South Renton Village Place to South 15th Place arterial widening to
accommodate frontage
road and I-405 ramps
60. Mill Avenue South – Houser Way to Bronson Way convert to one-way
northbound
61. Renton and Cedar Avenue Overpasses of I-405 realignment/revisions
to accommodate I-405
widening
62. Sunset Boulevard – west of I-405 realignment/revisions
to accommodate I-405
widening
63. Houser Way – north of North 4th Street realignment/revisions
to accommodate I-405
widening
64. Lake Washington Boulevard – north of NE 44th Street realignment to
accommodate I-405
widening
65. Benson Road/I-405 Overpass replacement to
accommodate I-405
widening
POST 2022 IMPROVEMENTS
RENTON:
South Lake Washington Improvements
• Logan Avenue North – North 4th Street to Garden Avenue North
• North 10th Street – Logan Avenue North to Houser Way
arterial widening
street widening
• North 8th Street – Logan Avenue North to Garden Avenue North arterial widening
• Park Avenue North – Logan Avenue North to 1,200 feet north of Logan
Avenue North
new street
North 4th Street – Logan Avenue North to Sunset Boulevard revise street network
WSDOT (Limited Access):
ATTACHMENT E
XI-27
I-405 – I-5 to SR 167 add one lane in each
direction
I-405/SR 167 Interchange
• Northbound SR 167 to Southbound I-405 construct direct
connection ramp
East Valley Road at SW 34th Street construct new ramps
connecting to SR 167
I-405 at North 10th Street construct direct
connection ramps to
and from the north
I-405 at SR 169
• Northbound I-405 to Houser Way construct direct
connection ramp
• Southbound Houser Way to Southbound I-405 construct direct
connection ramp
• Northbound SR 169 to Northbound I-405 construct direct
connection ramp
WSDOT (City ROW):
Rainier Avenue – Grady Way to East Valley Road realign roadway to
connect to East Valley
Road at SW 16th Street
East Valley Road – SW 16th to SW 34th Street arterial widening
ATTACHMENT E
XI-28
FIGURE 1-7
RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS
ATTACHMENT E
XI-29
Included in Table 1.1 are arterial and freeway improvements that have been identified beyond 2022. These
improvements will also be needed to support future land use and neighborhood and business goals and improve
safety.
Ongoing transportation planning work will include periodic testing of the 2002-2022 arterial and freeway
improvements in Table 1.1 against the LOS standard.
TRANSIT
In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. The challenge will be to better manage
the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single
occupant vehicles. One of the most important of these alternatives is public transportation, or "transit." The
Renton transit system, defined in this Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element, must provide attractive,
convenient service for the local and regional travel needs of Renton businesses and residents.
Objectives
The Transit Chapter is based on the following objectives:
T-B: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles.
T-C: Ensure that a regional high-capacity transit system serves Renton.
T-D: Develop a transit system that conveniently connects the regional high-capacity transit system and local
Renton residential areas, activity centers, and employment centers to the transit center.
T-E: Develop a local transit system that provides attractive, convenient service for intra-Renton travel.
Policies
Policy T-17. The City should work with other
jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area to plan
and provide frequent, coordinated and
comprehensive bus service and transit facilities in
all residential and employment areas.
Policy T-18. Local and regional transit service and
facilities should be planned and improved in
cooperation with the regional transit authority.
Policy T-19. The City should take an active role in
working with the regional transit agencies in
planning and locating public transit facilities.
Policy T-20. The multi-modal Transit Center in
downtown Renton should be promoted as part of a
regional high capacity transit system.
Policy T-21. Parking serving the downtown Transit
Center should be encouraged in parking structures.
Policy T-22. Non-structured park-and-ride
facilities should be located out of the Urban Center
and feed into the downtown Transit Center.
Policy T-23. Development of a regional network
using new technology to move people and goods
should be supported.
Policy T-24. The City should support development
of transit service connecting Renton to a regional
rail network.
Policy T-25. Criteria should be developed to locate
park-and-ride lots serving residential areas.
Policy T-26. Park-and-rides within the City of
Renton’s Urban Center and its Center Village
designations should meet the following criteria:
• Use structured parking garages.
• Be available for non-commuter use during
evenings and weekends.
• Be located within the immediate vicinity of
the City’s Transit Center, or any future major
transit transfer facility (e.g., in Renton
Highlands or South Lake Washington
Neighborhood).
Policy T-27. Surface park-and-rides located
outside of the City’s Urban Center should meet the
following criteria:
• Be located in the vicinity of I-405, SR-167,
SR-900 east of I-405, and/or SR-169. (These
park-and-ride locations shall be chosen to
provide convenient access for transit to those
ATTACHMENT E
XI-30
corridors while minimizing commuter pass-
through traffic on Renton’s street system.)
• Be located in Commercial or Industrial
designations within easy walking distance of
employment, and/or multi-family uses.
• Not be located within the Rainier Avenue
corridor north of the I-405/SR-167
interchange.
• Avoid consuming large areas of urban land
for primary use parking lots.
Policy T-28. Shared-use park-and-rides located
anywhere within the City should meet the following
criteria:
• Be leased from existing, under-utilized
parking spaces required per development
standards for a primary use.
• Not be expanded to accommodate leased park
and rides.
• Not be leased within the commercial area
west of the Urban Center– Downtown
bounded by SW 7th Street, Shattuck Avenue,
Airport Way, and Hardie Avenue SW since
cash flow resulting from a lease may be a
disincentive for redevelopment of surface
parking lots in this area.
Policy T-29. Regional commercial uses should be
linked by frequent and reliable mass transit to
major employment and population centers.
Also see related policies in: TDM/CTR Section; Land Use Element/Urban Center Section; and Community
Design Element.
The residential and centers policies of the land use plan also support transit through establishment of residential
densities and a mix of residential and commercial uses in centers that can support public transportation.
Specific treatment of the routes and stops for a transit system in downtown Renton are addressed in the
Downtown policies of the land use plan. However, it is expected that such stops would serve commercial
activity centers, which would complement the commercial and residential activities envisioned in the centers
and residential policies of the land use plan.
Existing Transit Service
Bus service in Renton is currently provided by the King County Transit Division (Metro), the agency
responsible for transit service in King County, and Sound Transit, the agency responsible for regional transit
service.
Figure 2-1 identifies the bus routes operating in Renton in 2003. A variety of Metro service is provided in the
city ranging from internal Renton routes such as Route 110, the Renton “Rush” circulator route, to regional
service to downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue. Sound Transit’s service includes express routes
operating to SeaTac and Bellevue (Route 560), to Auburn and Bellevue (Route 564) and to Federal Way and
Bellevue (Route 565). While not serving the city directly, Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail service stops
at the nearby Tukwila station. During weekday peak periods, Sounder trains currently serve several locations in
Pierce County and South King County as well as downtown Seattle (King Street Station).
The following provides an overview of the 2003 transit network serving Renton.
Local Access
The route structure and service headways for Renton routes provide basic overall service coverage. One of the
local, community-oriented routes, Route 148, provides late evening and Sunday service. Route 105 provides
evening service in the Highlands. Service connections in the Highlands area are reduced in the early evening
periods; however, Route 240 provides evening and weekend service in the Highlands. In addition, Route 110,
which was intended to operate as a local circulator, is available only during the peak periods and includes
service connection to the Tukwila commuter rail station.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-31
Eastside Connections
Several Metro and Sound Transit routes provide connections to downtown Bellevue and other Eastside
communities. These connections include Bellevue (non-downtown) and Factoria. Direct service is currently
provided between Highlands and Factoria via Metro Route 240. Route 140 provides 30-minute service during
the day Monday through Saturday plus hourly service in the evenings.
South King County Connections
The baseline travel demand patterns indicate a substantial level of demand between Kent and various locations
in Renton, particularly the Green River Valley. While several Metro and Sound Transit routes connect Kent
with Renton, the service is focused on the downtown Renton. The Green River Valley area is accessed at the
western edge of this district.
East-West Connections
Metro Route 140 currently connects Burien and Renton. Sound Transit Route 560 provides a connection
between SeaTac and Renton. East-west connections to the Green River Valley area are particularly important
given the current level of travel demand to this area from locations such as Tukwila and Burien.
The following routes serve a variety of markets:
• Routes 101 and 106, Downtown • Route 240, Bellevue
• Route 140, Burien • Route 169, Kent
• Route 148, Local Renton
Downtown Renton Transit Center
The Downtown Renton Transit Center is the hub of transit service in Renton. The Transit Center is served by
regional and local service provided by Sound Transit and the King County Transit Division (Metro), and acts as
both a destination and a major transfer center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center is located between South
Second and South Third Streets on Burnett Avenue South and on a new connection between Logan Avenue
South and Burnett Avenue South. The facility has been carefully integrated with other planned developments in
the downtown area.
Custom Bus Service
King County Transit, as of 2003, operated one custom bus route (952) serving Renton. This route operates one
trip in the peak hour in the peak direction serving areas with significant employment density. Renton custom
bus service originates at the Auburn Boeing plant, and serves Kent, Renton and terminates at the Everett Boeing
plant.
Park-and-Ride Facilities
Renton has one dedicated transit park-and-ride lot facility within the city limits: the South Renton Park-and-
Ride lot located at South Grady Way and Shattuck Avenue South. This park-and-ride lot has 370 spaces and is
used at capacity.
There are four park-and-ride lots in the Renton planning area which are leased by King County Transit for
commuter parking. One of the lots is in downtown Renton, at the First Baptist Church at Southwest Sunset
Boulevard and Hardie Avenue Southwest. It has 21 spaces and is used at 19% capacity. Another lot located in
the Renton Highlands at Saint Matthew's Lutheran Church on Northeast 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue
Northeast has 146 spaces and is at 29% capacity. A third lot is located at the East Renton Shopping Center at
Southeast 128th Street and 164th Avenue Southeast, east of the Renton City limits in unincorporated King
County. This lot has 21 spaces and is at 29% capacity. The fourth leased lot, also located in unincorporated
King County, is at the Nativity Lutheran Church at 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 177th Street. This
lot has 25 spaces and is at 60% capacity.
The Boeing Company has an employee-only park-and-ride lot located in the vicinity of North 8th Street and
Garden Avenue North. This lot has a capacity of approximately 100 stalls.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-32
The City has leased 200 parking spaces in the downtown parking garage to King County Metro Transit as a
park and ride facility.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-33
FIGURE 2-1 EXISTING RENTON TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES
ATTACHMENT E
XI-34
Future Regional Accessibility
The long range transit and rideshare service concept for the King County Transit Division (Metro) service area
is described in the Long Range Policy Framework for Public Transportation (adopted October, 1993). The
Framework establishes policies that will guide future planning and development efforts, and it identifies
possible policy implementation strategies. More specific near term transit improvements are outlined in the
King County Transit Division’s Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007.
On May 31, 1996 the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) approved a 10-year plan,
Sound Move, which is illustrated in Figure 2-2: The Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan. Voters approved
a funding package to implement the plan on November 5, 1996. The approved Sound Transit Plan includes the
following regional improvements: light rail transit, commuter rail transit, HOV expressway development,
regional express bus service, and community connection improvements.
Sound Transit improvements which will directly serve Renton include HOV access improvements, express bus
service, and local connection improvements. In addition, commuter rail running between Seattle and Tacoma
will stop at a station serving Renton and Tukwila, sited adjacent to the Boeing Longacres property. Efficient
transit connections will be provided between the Downtown Renton Transit Center and the Commuter Rail
Station.
Sound Transit provides regional express bus service, with three routes serving Renton. As noted previously,
express routes serve SeaTac, Bellevue, Auburn and Federal Way. To ensure quick access to the Downtown
Renton Transit Center, the Sound Move plan identified direct access HOV ramps on I-405 in the vicinity of
North 8th Street and needed arterial HOV improvements in Renton to improve transit speed, reliability and
ridership of transit services. Before constructing any arterial HOV improvements, Sound Transit will evaluate
alternative improvements to benefit transit speed, reliability, and access. The City of Renton is coordinating
with Sound Transit to ensure that commensurate transit service and improvements to improve transit speed,
reliability and ridership in Renton will be provided should I-405/HOV direct access ramps not be implemented.
Transit Plan
Transit improvements are needed to provide the facilities and services necessary to support and encourage
increased transit use and provide an alternative to single occupancy vehicle travel. The transit facilities and
services outlined in the Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element are needed to provide adequate access
between the regional transit system and Renton residential and employment areas, and to provide an attractive
transit alternative for travel within Renton.
As described in the previous section, an element of the regional system is the Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail
line. Access to Renton is provided by a station located on the Renton-Tukwila border between Longacres Way
and Strander Boulevard. This station is currently served by local bus transit and will additionally be served by
local, and possibly regional, bus transit, including fast connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-35
FIGURE 2-2
REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM
ATTACHMENT E
XI-36
Regional transit services are provided by the previously described Sound Transit express bus service, as well as
by select King County Transit Division (Metro) express bus routes. The local transit system links
neighborhoods and commercial centers with one another as well as to the regional transit system through
connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. Local service is provided through a combination of
services, including buses, shuttles, and Dial-a-Ride (DART) service. In addition, interceptor park-and-ride lots
outside of downtown Renton should be developed close to trip origin locations, with transit service feeding the
Transit Center and regional services. Renton has been and will continue to work with these transit agencies to
assure that transit adequately serves Renton’s developing residential areas.
An illustration of Renton’s 20-year transit plan is provided in Figure 2-3. This figure depicts planned regional
and local improvements, and identifies at a conceptual level potential service types and transit routes. Specific
transit service improvements and facilities identified for the next 6 years, and over the next 20 years to support
Renton’s conceptual transit plan, are described in the City of Renton Transit Needs Assessment as well as in the
King County Transit Division’s Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007 and by the regional Sound
Move program. The Transit Plan comprises a transit system that will serve Renton from 2002 to 2022, as a
regional destination and as a city with commercial and neighborhood centers.
It should also be noted that the exclusive freeway/arterial HOV facilities included in the HOV Chapter are
needed to support and encourage increased transit use by improving transit travel times (by enabling buses to
bypass or avoid the traffic congestion that is forecasted for the Renton and regional road systems).
Level of Service
The City of Renton Level of Service (LOS) policy emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. This
LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and
transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures.
The LOS standard will be used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit
measures will be based on travel time contours and will be the primary indicators for concurrency.
The 2022 LOS standard has been established to greatly increase the competitiveness of transit compared to
SOV travel. Achieving this goal has guided the planning and programming of the elements of the Transit Plan.
Information on development of the transit index of the Level of Service Standard is provided in the City of
Renton Level of Service Documentation. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued
refinement and updating of the transit index.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-37
FIGURE 2-3
RENTON TRANSIT PLAN
ATTACHMENT E
XI-38
HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV)
In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. A major challenge of the Renton
Transportation Element will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand
by encouraging the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. The HOV Chapter addresses this challenge
by focusing on increasing the person-carrying capacity of the system rather than the vehicular capacity.
Objectives
The HOV Chapter is based on the following objectives:
T-F: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles.
T-G: Develop HOV facilities on freeways and arterials to support and encourage ridesharing by enabling
HOVs to bypass or avoid severe traffic congestion on Renton and regional street and highway
networks.
T-H: Provide facilities to support attainment of Commute Trip Reduction and other Growth Management
goals within the City.
Policies
Policy T-30. The City should support completion
of a comprehensive system of HOV improvements
and programs on state highways and regional
arterials that give high-occupancy vehicles a travel
time advantage over single-occupancy vehicles.
Policy T-31. The City should continue to promote
measures to increase the use of high occupancy
vehicles among employers located within the City.
Policy T-32. A continuous network of arterial
HOV facilities (lanes, bypass, etc.) should be
provided on the congested travel corridors in
Renton.
Policy T-33. Arterial HOV facilities should be
provided on the local arterial routes in Renton that
provide access to/from the regional highway
system.
Policy T-34. The City should establish or should
encourage the establishment of arterial HOV
system warrants, standards and criteria for usage
(volume, capacity, LOS); physical and geometric
characteristics; appropriate locations; time-of-day
of operation; HOV facility type.
Policy T-35. The City should support a regional
vehicle occupancy monitoring and HOV system
evaluation program that includes elements such as
a “demonstration managed lanes” project,
electronic tolling or “HOT LANES” concept.
(Also see related policies in the TDM/CTR Section
and see King County Countywide Planning
Policies.)
Existing HOV Facilities
Freeway HOV facilities are provided on Interstate 405 and SR-167. These include inside (median) HOV
lanes, both northbound and southbound, on I-405 from the I-5 interchange and continuing to the Renton north
city limit and beyond. Two or more persons in a vehicle are allowed to travel in these lanes. These lanes are
in effect 24 hours per day, except when non-HOV use is allowed between 7 pm and 5 am.
Inside HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, exist on SR-167 between the south Renton city limits
and SR-405. This HOV facility is also designated for 2+ occupant vehicles.
An HOV queue jump lane is provided at the following interchange ramps in Renton: the northbound SR-167
to northbound I-405 ramp; the I-405/SR-169 (Maple Valley) northbound and southbound on-ramps; the I-
405/N.E. Park Drive northbound and southbound on-ramps; the I-405/N.E. 30th northbound on-ramp; and, the
I-405/N.E. 44th southbound on-ramp. Each of the queue jump lanes has a 2+ designation.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-39
HOV Plan
HOV facilities on SR-167 and I-405 provide the freeway HOV system through Renton.. Additional regional
HOV facilities (i.e., on I-5) must be implemented by the State Department of Transportation in order to
provide regional HOV service to the I-405 and SR 167 corridors. To-date HOV lanes have been completed on
I-5 between the Seattle CBD and Puyallup and on SR 167 between 15th Street NW in Auburn and I-405 in
Renton.
The City has identified arterial HOV corridors based on the policies listed previously. These corridors include
many of the principal arterials through central Renton and state routes throughout the city. The Renton HOV
Plan includes the provision (over the next 20 years (2002 to 2022) of the HOV facilities shown in Figure 3-1.
The Plan includes HOV facilities, in the form of HOV lanes or intersection queue jumps, in the Renton
corridors listed below:
• Rainier Avenue / Airport Way
• SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway)
• Park Drive North / N.E. Sunset Boulevard
• SR-515 or Benson Road
• S.W. 27th Street
ATTACHMENT E
XI-40
FIGURE 3-1
RENTON HOV PLAN
ATTACHMENT E
XI-41
In addition to arterial HOV improvements, construction of direct access HOV interchange ramps to provide
connections to the I-405 HOV lane system is planned at N.E. 44th Street, N. 8th Street, and on the SR-167
system at S.W. 27th Street. These ramps will provide vital HOV access and enable efficient transit movements
in the City to support regional and local transit service consistent with the objectives and policies described in
the Transit Chapter of this Transportation Element.
The HOV Plan also includes a transit corridor in Central Renton: S. 3rd/Burnett/ Logan/N. 6th comprise the
northern portion of the corridor and in the southern portion South Grady Way, Rainier Avenue, Lind Avenue,
Hardie Avenue and Main Avenue South are under consideration to complete the corridor. (Other potential
north-south streets south of S. 4th Street, i.e. Shattuck Avenue S., Burnett Avenue, Williams Avenue and Wells
Avenue are not under consideration as a result of the City’s decision, in response to significant public input, to
locate the southern portion of the transit corridor outside of the South Renton residential area.) A north-south
transit corridor is an important element of a transit plan that supports Renton’s policies to: 1) encourage local
and regional transit agencies to provide a high level of transit service to the Downtown Renton Transit Center
by improving transit travel time, accessibility and reliability; and, 2) provide an attractive and effective
alternative mode of transportation to the single occupant vehicle that contributes to a reduction in traffic
congestion and air pollution in Renton’s Urban Center. Also, the Strander Boulevard improvement identified
in the Arterial Plan, Table 1.1, will serve transit vehicles as well as SOV and HOV traffic and is planned for
implementation coordinated with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station.
Several of the above HOV/transit improvements have been identified for funding under the regional Sound
Transit plan approved by voters. Under this regional high capacity transit plan, Renton is designated to be
served by the regional express bus system. Sound Transit has evaluated if there are capital facilities that could
be constructed in Renton which would improve reliability and travel time for transit and HOV movement
sufficient to warrant Sound Transit’s investment. Sound Transit has identified the Central Renton north-south
transit corridor improvements and HOV direct access interchange improvements at North 8th Street as
beneficial capital investments.
The improvements in the Renton HOV Plan, along with improvements in the Arterial Plan and Transit Plan,
provide a multi-modal transportation plan that meets the 2022 level of service standard for the projected travel
demand from land use development envisioned by 2022.
HOV improvements in the I-405 corridor that have been identified beyond 2022 are listed below. These
improvements would help to support future land use development. If these improvements were implemented
by 2022 they could help maintain Renton’s 2022 level of service standard.
I-5/I-405 Interchange
• Northbound I-5 to Northbound I-405
• Southbound I-405 to Southbound I-5
• Southbound I-5 to Northbound I-405
construct direct connection ramp
construct direct connection ramp
construct direct connection ramp
I-405/SR 167 Interchange
• Northbound SR 167 to Southbound I-405
• Northbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167
construct direct connection ramp
construct direct connection ramp
I-405 at Tukwila Commuter Rail Station construct half interchange
I-405 at Rainier Avenue construct half interchange
Ongoing transportation planning work will include further analysis of the freeway interchange and arterial
corridor HOV improvements identified in the HOV plan to verify physical, operational and financial needs and
scheduling of implementation. This further study may find that the planned HOV improvements may not be
feasible on one or more of the selected corridors. Therefore, ongoing work will also include the examination
of additional arterial corridors for HOV treatment on an as-needed basis (without over-developing or over-
ATTACHMENT E
XI-42
using this type of transportation facility). Over-development of HOV facilities can lead to under-utilization
and HOV traffic dispersion, rather than consolidation.
Level of Service
As discussed in the Arterial Chapter, the City of Renton LOS policy emphasizes the movement of people, not
just vehicles. This LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non-
motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures.
The LOS standard will be used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit
measures of this LOS standard will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary indicators for
concurrency.
HOV improvements along with transit improvements should show great effectiveness in improving 2022 travel
times and distance. Achieving this goal will guide the planning and programming of the elements of the HOV
Plan.
Further information on how the HOV index of the Level of Service Standard was established is provided in the
City of Renton Level of Service Support Document.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-43
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
The non-motorized component of the City’s Transportation Plan is designed to enhance the quality of urban life
in Renton, to improve walking and bicycling safety, and to support the pedestrian and bicycle transportation
modes as alternatives to the use of automobiles.
The plan recognizes that non-motorized facilities along roadways and trails may serve multiple functions,
including commuting and recreation. The on-street elements are specified in the City of Renton Comprehensive
Citywide Walkway Program and as described later in this section. Off-street elements of the non-motorized
transportation system are specified by the City of Renton Long Range Parks, Recreation Open Space and Trails
Master Plan described in the Parks Element.
1. Renton's existing transportation system is oriented towards accommodating cars, trucks, and buses
rather than pedestrians or bicycles. The intent of the objectives and policies that follow is to provide
guidelines for reevaluating the existing system and providing a better environment for walking and
bicycling. Overall, pedestrian facilities throughout the City are intended to be upgraded.
2. More facilities are also needed for bicycle storage and parking in shopping areas, employment centers
and in public places.
3. A better pedestrian network can be encouraged by creating an interconnected street system, developed
to street standards, which include adequate walkways and street crossings. Traffic sanctuary islands
and midblock crossings across busy arterials are also useful methods of improving the pedestrian
environment.
Objectives
The Non-Motorized Chapter is based on the following objectives:
T-I: Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional
travel.
T-J: Develop and maintain comprehensive trails system which provides non-motorized access throughout
the City, maximizes public access to open space areas, and provides increased recreational
opportunities for the public.
T-K: Integrate Renton's non-motorized transportation needs into a comprehensive transportation system
serving both local and regional users.
T-L: Enhance and improve the non-motorized circulation system to, from, and within the City.
T-M: Develop and designate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle commuter routes along existing minor arterial
and collector arterial corridors.
Policies
Policy T-36. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic
should be accommodated within all areas of the
City.
Policy T-37. Pedestrian and bicycle movement
across arterial intersections should be enhanced.
Policy T-38. Obstructions and conflicts that
restrict pedestrian movement should be
minimized on sidewalks, paths and other
pedestrian areas.
Policy T-39. Convenient and safe pedestrian and
bicycle access should be provided to and at the
downtown Transit Center and all transit stops.
Policy T-40. Bicycle storage facilities and
parking should be encouraged within
ATTACHMENT E
XI-44
development projects, in commercial areas and in
parks.
Policy T-41. Streets and pedestrian paths in
residential neighborhoods should be arranged as
an interconnecting network and should connect to
other streets.
Policy T-42. New pedestrian facilities should be
compliant with the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and existing facilities should be upgraded to
improve accessibility.
Policy T-42.1. Non-motorized transportation
should be developed in tandem with motorized
transportation systems, recognizing issues such as
safety, user diversity, and experiential diversity.
Policy T-42.2. Recognize the diversity of
transportation modes and trip purposes of the
following four groups: pedestrians, bicyclists,
joggers and runners.
Policy T-42.3. Foot/bicycle separation should be
provided wherever possible; however, where
conflict occurs, foot traffic should be given
preference.
Policy T-42.4. Adequate separation between
non-motorized and motorized traffic should be
provided to ensure safety.
Policy T-42.5. The adopted Long Range Parks,
Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan should
be coordinated with and be an integral component
of the City's on-going transportation planning
activities.
Policy T-42.6. Appropriate mitigation measures
should be taken to address impacts on the City's
transportation infrastructure. Contributions to the
City's non-motorized circulation system will help
alleviate such impacts.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City's existing non-motorized transportation system is comprised primarily of roadside sidewalks.
Pedestrians have the exclusive use of sidewalks within business districts and have shared use with cyclists
in other areas of the city.
Although the City Code requires that sidewalks be provided on all streets, many of the public streets were
constructed before the existing code was enacted, and as a result, numerous roadways are currently without
sidewalks. Streets needing sidewalks include both local and arterial roadways. The City of Renton
Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study addresses the sidewalks and walkways within the City. This
report identifies a priority roster to construct "missing" sidewalk/walkway sections throughout the City.
The priority evaluation system is based on four sidewalk users: 1) school children, 2) elderly persons, 3)
transit riders, and 4) all other users.
Except within business districts, cyclists may use existing sidewalks, provided that they yield the right-of-
way to pedestrians. As of 2003, Renton has a combined bicycle/pedestrian facility along Garden Avenue
North (North 6th Street to North 8th Street) and North 8th Street (Garden Avenue North to Houser Way), and
striped bicycle lanes on Southwest 16th Street (Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Longacres Drive), on
Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street) on Duvall Avenue NE (NE 4th Street to NE
8th Street), and on NE 4th Street (east of Duvall Avenue NE).
Renton is located at the crossroads of a regional system of existing and proposed trails. Existing trails
within the City include the Cedar River Trail System and a portion of the Lake Washington Loop Trail.
Regional Systems with proposed access to the City include the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail.
Figure 4-1 shows the existing (2003) non-motorized facilities within Renton and the nearby regional routes.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-45
FIGURE 4-1
EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES
ATTACHMENT E
XI-46
Design criteria for walkways, trails, and bikeways are contained in a variety of documents, including the
City of Renton Municipal Code and Trails Master Plan, King County Road Standards, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,
and Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (the MUTCD).
Neighborhood and Regional Access
The principal non-motorized facility type linking neighborhoods within Renton and providing regional
access are sidewalks or walkways. These facilities provide safe non-motorized mobility for both
pedestrians and cyclists outside of business districts. Within business districts, sidewalks provide safe
mobility for pedestrians.
Currently, the sidewalks that exist along most of the arterials within the City provide the primary regional
link as well. This "regional" access includes non-contiguous areas within Renton as well as areas outside of
the City planning area. Some notable walkway deficiencies exist along sections of Maple Valley Highway
(SR-169), Puget Drive, and Talbot Road South. These roadways do not currently provide safe non-
motorized mobility through Renton. Installation of walkways/sidewalks has been either programmed into
future transportation improvement projects, or identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide
Walkway Study.
Non-motorized neighborhood connections are made via sidewalks along arterial and collector roadways.
Sidewalk connections between most neighborhoods within the City limits currently exist. In some
locations, however, sidewalks are not continuous along a roadway.
In potential annexation areas that are or were defined as "rural" by King County, sidewalks have generally
not been constructed along either arterial or local roadways, because sidewalks are not required by rural
area design standards. Most existing county roadways have either paved or gravel shoulders for use by
cyclists and pedestrians. Consequently, many of the potential annexation areas do not provide protected
non-motorized inter-neighborhood connection. This is not the case in Fairwood, however, where sidewalks
have been installed throughout the development.
Another important consideration is the bicycle route connection to regional cycling corridors. The regional
corridors, to which the Renton bicycle routes should connect, include the Interurban, Christensen/Green
River, Lake Washington Loop, Sammamish, and Soos Creek Trails.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan
The City, per the Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study, will construct sidewalks/walkways at "missing
locations." In some areas, sidewalks will be constructed along each side of the street. Because of physical
constraints such as side slopes and roadway grades, or minimal expected pedestrian usage, some locations
will have pedestrian/cyclist facilities constructed on only one side of the street. Sidewalk facilities will be
constructed as part of a prioritized installation program. Additional non-motorized facilities will be
constructed in conjunction with roadway improvement projects and as part of the Transit Improvement
Program.
Current annexation area roadways without sidewalks will be added to the Comprehensive Citywide
Walkway Study after annexation into the City. Sidewalk improvements on roadways could be improved
through local improvement district (LID) and capital improvement projects (CIP).
Table 4.2 lists routes that have been identified as important bicycle transportation elements. Along
roadways designated as bicycle routes, roadway or shoulder widening may accommodate cyclists' needs.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-47
These improvements could be added when roadway improvement projects are constructed or implemented
as individual improvement projects.
Further review by the City of Renton, in cooperation with citizen groups, will be necessary to determine
which of the projects listed in Table 4.1 are selected for development.
King County is pursuing development of bicycle facilities outside of the Renton city limits. Four routes
leading into Renton have been identified in the King County Non-motorized Plan:
• 116th Avenue Southeast (Edmonds Avenue Southeast) (Southeast Petrovitsky Road to
South 157th Street)
• 140 Place/Avenue Southeast (Southeast 192nd Street to Southeast Renton-Maple Valley Road)
• State Route 900 (138th Avenue Southeast (Duvall Avenue Northeast) to Southeast 82nd Street)
• Coal Creek Parkway Southeast (Newcastle City Limits to Renton City Limits)
The routes identified by the City of Renton and listed in Table 4.1 will be planned to connect with these
proposed King County facilities.
The City of Renton Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan identified in the Parks
Element provides an in-depth description of proposed walking, bicycle, and mixed-use trails. By nature,
these types of trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, and are not necessarily supportive of
transportation goals. The creation of these trails would certainly supplement the City's non-motorized
transportation system, and their development by the Parks Department should be encouraged. Routes that
are found to be important transportation elements could be constructed through the transportation program.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-48
TABLE 4.1
PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTES
Facility Name Route
Sunset Bypass Route Northeast 17th Street (Duvall Avenue Northeast to Union Avenue Northeast)
Union Avenue Northeast (Northeast 17th Street to Northeast 12th Street)
Northeast 12th Street or NE 10th Street (Union Avenue Northeast to Edmonds
Avenue Northeast)
Edmonds Avenue Northeast (Northeast 12th /10th Street to Northeast Park Drive)
Northeast Park Drive (Edmonds Avenue Northeast to Lake Washington
Boulevard North)
Monroe Avenue Northeast Monroe Avenue Northeast (Northeast 4th Street to Northeast 12th Street)
Duvall Avenue Northeast Duvall Avenue Northeast (Northeast 10th Street to Northeast 24th Street)
Lake Washington Boulevard
(Lk Washington Loop Route)
Lake Washington Boulevard (Northeast 44th Street to Coulon Park) (Partially
completed)
Garden
(Lk Washington Loop Route)
Houser Way North (Lake Washington Boulevard to North 8th Street)
Garden Avenue North (North 6th Street to Bronson Way)
Central Renton Connection
(Lk Washington Loop Route)
Garden Avenue/North 6th Street to Airport Perimeter Road (Various routes
under consideration).
Burnett Burnett Avenue South (Cedar River Trail to Southwest 7th Street)
Airport Airport Perimeter Road corridor (Logan Avenue North to Rainier Avenue)
(Lk Washington Loop Route) Rainier Avenue North (Airport Perimeter Road to Northwest 3rd Street)
Hardie/Rainier Bypass Northwest 3rd (Rainier Avenue North to Hardie Avenue Northwest)
Hardie Avenue (Northwest 3rd Street to Southwest 7th Street)
Southwest 7th Southwest 7th Street (Burnett to Oakesdale)
Southwest 16th Lind Avenue Southwest (Southwest 7th Street to Southwest 16th Street)
Southwest 16th Street (Lind Avenue Southwest to Raymond Avenue Southwest)
Southeast Area Main Avenue (Bronson Way to Benson Road South)
Benson Road South (Main Avenue South to Southeast 168th Street)
Puget Drive Southeast (Benson Road South to Edmonds Avenue Southeast)
Edmonds Avenue Southeast (Puget Drive Southeast to South 157th Street)
Strander Boulevard/Southwest
27th Street
Springbrook Wetlands Trail to Interurban Trail
Sunset Boulevard (West) Hardie Avenue Southwest to West City Limits
Talbot Road South 7th Street to South City Limits
Northeast 3rd/Northeast 4th Street Sunset Boulevard North to East City Limits
ATTACHMENT E
XI-49
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/
COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (TDM/CTR)
As stated in the Arterial, Transit, and HOV Chapters, a major challenge of the Renton Transportation Plan will
be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of
alternatives to single occupant vehicles. The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction
(TDM/CTR) Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on encouraging and facilitating reductions in trip-
making, dispersion of peak period travel demand throughout the day, increased transit usage, and increased ride
sharing.
In enacting the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law of 1991, and the 1997 amendments, the
State Legislature found that decreasing the demand for vehicle trips is significantly less costly and at least as
effective in reducing traffic congestion and its impacts as constructing new transportation facilities, such as
roads and bridges, to accommodate increased traffic volumes. The legislature further found that reducing the
number of commute trips to work made via single occupant cars and light trucks is an effective way of reducing
automobile-related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use. The goals, objectives, and policies of the
Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter also are based on these findings.
Objectives
The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter is based on the following
objectives:
T-N: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
T-O: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand.
Policies
This Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains City policies concerning
Transportation Demand Management and Commute Trip Reduction (including support for ride sharing and
management of parking supply).
Policy T-43. The disruptive impacts of traffic
related to centers and employment areas should be
reduced. (In this context, disruptive impacts are
primarily traffic. They could be mitigated through
techniques such as transportation management
programs implemented through cooperative
agreements at the work place, flexible work hours,
and subarea planning.)
Policy T-44. Appropriate parking ratios should be
developed that take into account existing parking
supply, land use intensity, and transit and ride-
sharing goals.
Policy T-45. Alternatives to on-street or on-site
parking should be explored.
Policy T-46. Site selection criteria should be
developed for location of park-and-ride lots
serving residential areas.
Policy T-47. The construction of parking
structures in downtown Renton should be
encouraged.
Policy T-48. Parking ratios should be reduced as
transit services are increased and an adequate level
of public transit can be demonstrated.
Policy T-49. Transportation demand management
measures should be implemented at residential and
retail developments, as well as at the workplace.
Policy T-50. Employers affected by Commute
Trip Reduction laws should be encouraged to
implement measures that support reductions in
SOV travel and vehicle miles traveled.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-50
Policy T-51. Site design and layout for all types
of development should incorporate transportation
demand management measures such as convenient
priority parking places for HOVs, and convenient,
direct pedestrian access from residential,
commercial, and other facilities to transit
stops/stations.
Strategy T-51.1 Downtown (Central Business
District) parking restrictions and/or removal
resulting from TDM/CTR policies shall apply to
commuter/employee parking, not to business
patron/customer parking.
Also see related policies in the HOV section.
Existing Parking Supply and Demand
An inventory of the existing parking supply in the Downtown Core was conducted in 2001. The inventory
gathered data for both on-street and off-street spaces. Figure 5.1 summarizes the results of the inventory. The
Downtown Core has 2,055 off-street spaces. There are also 387 public off-street parking spaces within the
Downtown Core. The remaining off-street parking spaces are private or signed for use by patrons of a
specific business. Additional information on this parking inventory is provided in the Parking in Renton’s
Downtown Core report.
Ongoing transportation planning work will include expanding the parking study area, possibly citywide, if
needed for the refinement of parking policies and guidelines.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-51
FIGURE 5-1
DOWNTOWN CORE EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY 2001
ATTACHMENT E
XI-52
Parking Policy Review
As stated in the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law of 1991, there exists a close
relationship between commuter behavior and the supply and cost of parking. As required by the CTR law, the
City has completed a review of local parking policies and ordinances as they relate to employers and major
worksites and revisions necessary to comply with commute trip reduction goals and guidelines.
Maximum parking ratios have been established, and the existing minimums modified in the City’s
Development Regulations, to create a range of appropriate allowable parking ratios. Additional revisions
have been made to support HOV, transit, and non-motorized usage and access.
Employers' Mode Split
The Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law requires employers deemed to be affected by the
CTR Law to have transportation programs for their employees designed to meet goals for reduction of single
occupancy vehicle commuter trips and/or reduction of vehicle miles traveled. CTR-affected employers shall
have two (2) years to meet the first CTR goal of fifteen percent (15%); four (4) years to meet the second goal
of twenty percent (20%); six (6) years to meet the third goal of twenty-five percent (25%); and twelve (12)
years to meet the fourth goal of thirty-five percent (35%) from the time they are deemed a CTR-affected
worksite and begin their program.
Employers' mode split will be addressed with data being gathered and used for the implementation of the
CTR law. In order to implement the state Commute Trip Reduction law, King County was divided into
approximately a dozen CTR zones with similar employment density, population density, level of transit
service, parking availability, and access to High Occupancy Vehicle facilities. The Puget Sound Regional
Council produced base year values for 1992 for each zone using its regional transportation model. These
values reflect the average rate of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips for all employers in the zones.
Most of the City of Renton is located in the South King County zone. A small piece of the City, the
northernmost tip, north of May Creek, is located in the East King County zone. The base year value for
single occupant vehicle trips for both the South and the East King County zone is 85%. While this figure is
not an exact mode split figure, it is representative of the degree to which employees of all employers in
Renton are accessing their worksites by single occupant vehicle or using other modes. The assumption is
made that the SOV rate is 85%, and the rate of trips made by other modes is 15%.
TDM/CTR Programs
The City has adopted a CTR Ordinance and a CTR Plan (February 1993). The ordinance outlines the
manner in which and the schedule with which employers located within the City of Renton are required to
design and implement commute trip reduction programs at their worksites.
The CTR Plan is a summary document that describes the City's implementation approach. As stated in the
Plan, the City has contracted with Metro to perform certain activities, including employer notification,
employer assistance, and program review. The Plan summarizes the CTR goals and establishes the CTR
zones mentioned above. It explains the circumstances and procedures for employer appeals of CTR
program administrative decisions. The Plan also states the City's commitment to implementing a CTR
program for its own employees, to complete the parking policy review mentioned above, and to report on an
annual basis to the state regarding progress towards meeting CTR goals.
In the past, the City, with the support of Metro, has developed Transportation Management Programs
(TMPs) for new residential, commercial, and office developments. These TMPs have usually been put in
place through SEPA agreements. At some point in the future, the City may consider adopting a developer-
based Transportation Demand Management ordinance (with site design and other requirements) to
complement the employer-based CTR ordinance and its employer worksite requirements.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-53
Parking Management Regulations
Parking regulations are specified in Section 4-4-080 of the Renton Municipal Code. The regulations
include requirements for new construction of parking including landscaping, screening, layout, paving,
markings, and wheel stops. They also include requirements for size and amount of parking according to the
land use activity involved.
Ongoing transportation planning work will include refinement of criteria for locating park and ride lots
serving residential areas to address factors such as the intensity of development in adjacent areas, the level
of traffic congestion in the areas, proximity to arterial streets, and opportunities to buffer lots from living
areas. Also, standards for construction of parking garages will be reviewed to address minimization of land
area and the amount of impervious surface.
AIRPORT
Renton's Airport is more than a transportation facility. It is also a vital element to Renton's commercial and
industrial economy, providing aircraft services, manufacturing support, flight training, and other airport
activities. The Airport Chapter of the Renton Transportation Element is implemented by the 2002 Airport
Business Plan and the Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport.
The intent of the objectives and policies is to support increased aviation activities and appropriate
mitigation of adverse impacts when possible. (See also the Airport Compatible Land Use section of the
Land Use Element.)
Objectives
The Airport Chapter is based on the following objectives:
T-P: Promote and develop local air transportation facilities in a responsible and efficient manner and
recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique, valuable, and long-standing public
transportation facility within the region.
T-Q: Maximize available space on the airport site for uses that require direct access to taxiways and
runways such as storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities.
T-R: Continue operation of the Airport as a Landing Rights Airport, ultimately providing permanent
inspection facilities to the U.S. Customs Service.
Policies
Policy T-52. Support the land base and seaplane
base activities. Acknowledge that there are
certain costs to the community associated with
the existence of the Renton Municipal Airport,
such as noise generation, but recognize that these
costs have historically been accepted by the
community in exchange for the economic and
transportation-related benefits and the civic
prestige that are also associated with the airport.
Policy T-53. Promote and develop airport
facilities and services for all wheeled and float-
equipped aircraft, owners, pilots, and passengers
in a manner that maximizes safety, efficiency,
and opportunity for use.
Policy T-54. Lease airport property for aviation-
related uses that create jobs and expand the City’s
tax base.
Policy T-55. The Renton Municipal Airport
provides the only publicly-owned seaplane
facility in the area and, therefore, the northern
shoreline of the airport should be restricted to
seaplane access.
Policy T-56. Develop appropriate land use plans
and regulations for structures and vegetation
within the airport’s runway approach zone. (See
Airport section of the Land Use Element,
Objectives LU-E, LU-F, LU-G and Policies LU-
19 – LU-30.)
ATTACHMENT E
XI-54
Airport Facilities
The Renton Municipal Airport is a major general aviation airport in the Puget Sound area. The Renton
Municipal Airport is formally designated as a Reliever Airport in the Federal Aviation Administration’s
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Regional Airport
System Plan.
The airport is owned by the City of Renton and is located in the northwest corner of the city, bounded
generally on the east by the Cedar River, on the west by Rainier Avenue North, on the south by Airport
Way, and on the north by Lake Washington (see Figure 1.1). The Airport consists of approximately 165.46
acres. It is oblong in shape, and has one runway with two parallel taxiways with concrete and blacktop
surfaces and surface water drainage.
The runway, running southeast to northwest, is 5,379 feet long and 200 feet wide, with a 340-foot displaced
threshold at the south end. It is equipped with medium intensity runway lighting, runway end identification
lighting (REIL), and precision approach path indicators (PAPI). Taxiways are lighted, and there is a
rotating beacon, a windsock, and a non-directional radio beacon. The Federal Aviation Administration
operates a contracted Air Traffic Control Tower during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. May 1 through
September 30 and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. October 1 through April 30.
Approximately 115,000 landings and take-offs per year take place at the Airport, making it the seventh
busiest airport in the State of Washington. Contiguous to the Renton Airport is the Will Rogers-Wiley Post
Memorial Seaplane Base. Landings and take-offs from the water are not recorded, but during the summer
months the seaplane base is one of the busiest in the Northwest.
Airport Activities
The Renton Airport serves general aviation demand generated by Renton, as well as by other communities
generally within a 30-minute driving time (e.g. Bellevue to the north, Issaquah to the east, Kent to the south,
and Seattle to the northwest). The concept of "general aviation" includes all aviation uses except scheduled
commercial passenger airline servicesand military operations. Consequently, nearly all of the aviation
operations at Renton Airport are those of general aviation, including the flights of the transport-class
aircraft produced by the adjacent Boeing plant. General aviation uses are both personal and revenue-
producing, the latter category including business, charter, and flight instruction.
The seaplane base provides facilities only for small general aviation types of aircraft (both personal and
revenue-producing).
Aircraft services available at the Airport include aircraft maintenance and service, fuel, flight instruction,
aircraft charter and rental, and aircraft storage, both hangared and open. Fixed base operators (FBO's),
which are aviation-oriented businesses offering a variety of services and products to aircraft owners and
operators, provide these services to the aviation public.
Airport Master Plan and Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan
1997 Airport Master Plan Update
A 1997 update to the original 1978 Master Plan was approved by the City Council in August 1997. A
primary purpose of the 1997 update was to determine the existing and future role of the airport and to
provide the City with information and direction in the future planning and continued development of the
ATTACHMENT E
XI-55
airport. The objective of the study was to develop a plan for providing the necessary facilities to best
accommodate the aviation needs of the airport and contiguous seaplane base over the next twenty years.
The study work scope consisted of inventories, forecasts of aviation demand, demand/capacity analyses,
facility requirements, airport layout plans and land use plans, development staging and costs, financial
plans, and an environmental impact assessment report. The Airport Master Plan is updated as necessary to
reflect progress and changes from the original Master Plan.
The 1997 Airport Master Plan should be updated in 2005 or 2006 as many of the recommendations from the
1997 Airport Master Plan have been implemented. The remaining recommendations should be re-evaluated
in the next update of the Airport Master Plan as conditions have changed.
2002 Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan
The 2002 Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan was prepared at the direction of the Renton City
Council. The purpose of the plan was to review business potential for the Airport and develop a plan for the
management and operation of the Airport, given the needs of aviation and the neighborhoods surrounding
the airport.
The Airport Business Plan reaffirmed Renton’s commitment to strong management and operation of the
Renton Municipal Airport. The recommendations reaffirmed the mix of uses presently at the Airport while
supporting increased efforts to curb aircraft noise.
Implementation of the Airport Master Plan
The airport development and financial plan portions of the Master Plan identify the capital improvements
that should be accomplished, specify when these improvements should be accomplished, and determine the
economic feasibility of accomplishing the programmed improvements and developments. The schedule of
developments and improvements is established in five-year increments, to coincide with the five-, 10- and
20-year projections of the Master Plan.
Based upon the five-year schedule of improvements and developments, Federal Aviation Administration
Airport Improvement Program Funds are requested for assistance with the accomplishment of those eligible
projects programmed in the Master Plan.
FREIGHT
The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element addresses the needs and impacts of goods movement
and distribution in Renton. The Freight Chapter focuses on the two primary providers of freight
transportation: trucking and freight rail.
Objectives
The Freight Chapter is based on the following objectives:
T-S: Maintain existing freight rail service to Renton commercial and industrial sites.
T-T: Maintain truck access between Renton industrial areas and the regional highway system.
T-U: Minimize the impact of truck traffic on general traffic circulation and on Renton neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-56
Policies
Policy T-57. Heavy through truck traffic should
be limited to designated truck routes in order to
reduce its disruptive impacts. (In this context,
"disruptive impacts" refers to nuisances,
particularly noise and parking, associated with
heavy trucks. In addition, the intent of the
policies is to minimize the physical impact of
heavy trucks on city streets.)
Policy T-58. Transportation facilities should be
designed to complement railroads.
Policy T-59. Spur tracks should be located to
provide a minimum number of street crossings
and serve a maximum number of sites.
Policy T-60. Strategies to minimize adverse
impacts of railroad operations on adjacent
residential property should be supported.
Policy T-61. Support railroad crossing
improvements that minimize maintenance and
protect the street surface.
Policy T-62. Where warranted, provide
protective devices, such as barriers and warning
signals, on at-grade crossings.
Policy T-63. The City should continue to work
with local, regional, state and federal agencies to
address regional freight needs and to mitigate
local impacts.
Truck Routes
The City has a system of truck routes (see Figure 7-1). Until October 1991, the system had been
informal, comprising only advisory signs on the routes. With the City Council adoption of the Truck
Route Ordinance, the truck route system became a regulatory system. Trucks weighing over 26,000
pounds gross vehicle weight are restricted to operating on one of the designated truck routes. Trucks
needing to make deliveries off of the designated truck routes are required to take the most direct arterial
route to/from one of the designated truck routes. When more than one delivery off the designated truck
routes can be combined to limit multiple intrusions into residential neighborhoods, a truck driver has an
obligation to combine those trips. The truck route ordinance does not apply to the operation of Renton
School District buses on designated routes, public transit on designated routes, garbage trucks, city
maintenance vehicles, or emergency vehicles.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-57
FIGURE 7-1
TRUCK ROUTES
ATTACHMENT E
XI-58
Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users
The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element recognizes the importance of maintaining rail
transportation, which supports industrial and commercial land uses, and provides one component of a
multi-modal transportation system. The Freight Chapter also provides guidelines to ensure that existing
rail lines do not impact adjacent land uses, create maintenance problems for City streets or pose safety
concerns.
Freight rail service is currently available to several industrial and commercial areas of the City. Existing
rail lines bordering the City of Renton include the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railroad (BNSF) main line tracks between Seattle and Tacoma. Within the City of Renton, the BNSF
18th Subdivision Branch Line connects Renton and the east side of Lake Washington to the BNSF main
line.
The BNSF main line runs in a north-south direction and is located along the City of Renton's western city
limits, separating Renton from the City of Tukwila. The BNSF main line is double-track, and carries a
considerable volume of freight service, as well as passenger service provided by Amtrak under a trackage
rights agreement. Only freight service is provided to the City of Renton from the BNSF main line. A
single spur track with several branch lines serves the Renton Valley industrial area (southwest Renton).
Another single spur track from the BNSF main line serves the Container Corporation of America plant,
located north of I-405 in the Earlington industrial area. Use of these spur lines is intermittent, usually on
an as-needed basis with no particular set time or frequency.
Commuter rail trains use the BNSF main line, with a stop at the new Renton/Tukwila (Longacres) station
located just south of I-405. The commuter rail service is an element of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound
Move), approved by voters in 1996. The commuter rail service began in 2001. Three trains currently
provide one-way service between Tacoma and Seattle during the weekday AM peak period and between
Seattle and Tacoma in the weekday PM peak period, with stops at the Renton/Tukwila station.
The BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line splits from the BNSF main line at the Black River Junction, and
continues easterly through downtown Renton and then northerly through the North Renton industrial area.
The line continues north along the east side of Lake Washington, and connects back with the BNSF main
line in Snohomish County. Freight service on this branch line is provided by two trains per day (one in
each direction). Passenger excursions are made on this branch line by the Spirit of Washington Dinner
Train, which makes one round trip on weekdays and two round trips on weekends between downtown
Renton and Woodinville at the north end of Lake Washington. Three spur tracks off of the branch line
provide freight service to the Earlington industrial area in west central Renton. Two spur tracks serve the
North Renton industrial area north of downtown Renton. Freight service can occur at any time during the
day. The Spirit of Washington Dinner Train leaves downtown Renton at 6:00 p.m. and returns by 10:00
p.m. with an additional afternoon run on weekends.
The infrequent use of the BNSF main line spur tracks and the BNSF branch line results in minimal
disruption to vehicular traffic movement in Renton.
The UPRR mainline track, located 200 to 300 feet west of the BNSF mainline and Renton's City limits,
also runs in a north-south direction. The UPRR mainline is a single track, carrying a somewhat lower
level of freight-only service.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-59
Regional Accessibility
Trucks and Industrial Traffic
Truck access from City of Renton industrial areas to the regional highway/freeway system has the option
of several alternative designated truck routes (see Figure 7-1). The Valley industrial area (southwest
Renton) is directly connected to the regional system via the S.W. 43rd Street/SR-167 (Valley Freeway)
interchange and the SR-181 (West Valley Highway)/I-405 interchange. The Earlington industrial area in
west central Renton is served by designated truck routes on Rainier Avenue and Grady Way, which
provide direct access to SR-167 and to I-405 (via the SR-181/I-405 and SR-167/I-405 interchanges).
Truck access to the North Renton industrial area (north of downtown Renton and west of I-405) from I-
405 is provided via the designated truck route on Park Avenue North. Another truck route to I-405 and
SR-167 from the North Renton industrial area is via North 6th Street, Airport Way, and Rainier Avenue.
Truck and industrial traffic access from I-405 to the King County waste transfer station and maintenance
shops east of I-405 is provided via the Sunset and Maple Valley (SR-169) interchanges and N.E. 3rd
Street-N.E. 4th Street. The Stoneway Sand and Gravel complex, west of I-405, generates industrial traffic
that uses the North Park Avenue on-ramp to access I-405. Arterial improvement projects in the
Transportation Plan will enhance truck access between the industrial areas and the regional
highway/freeway system.
Freight and Passenger Rail Use
Future land use development is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in rail freight service in
Renton. Future plans call for additional commuter rail trains using the BNSF main line, stopping at the
Renton/Tukwila (Longacres) station.
Freight Action Strategy (FAST) Corridor
The Freight Action Strategy (FAST) corridor, and the projects which comprise FAST, evolved over
several years. Beginning in 1994, the Freight Mobility Roundabout — a jointly-sponsored effort of the
Puget Sound Regional Council and the public/private Economic Development Council of Seattle and
King County — made a sustained commitment to freight mobility within and through the northwest
gateway region, which ties the regional (and national) economy to the Pacific Rim. Roundabout
participants include shippers and carriers representing all freight mobility modes: marine, rail, truck, air,
and intermodal. Other participants are public agencies at all levels: local governments (including the
City of Renton), the three ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett, WSDOT and the State Transportation
Commission, and federal agencies (FHWA, FTA). Late in 1994 the United States Department of
Transportation together with the Roundabout, the WSDOT, and the Puget Sound Regional Council
established FAST Corridor.
FAST Corridor is a collection of complementary grade separation and port access projects within the
Everett-Seattle-Tacoma area of Washington State. Collectively, these projects will enhance the
movement of freight within and through the region. Key points of the FAST Corridor projects include:
• Between Everett in the north and Tacoma in the south, focus on the region’s north-south rail routes
and port access routes.
• Helping to improve the state and region’s transportation capacity to better meet the needs for
freight and goods movements.
• Implementation of a series of grade separation and port access improvements, along with some
corollary improvements. These improvements will complement other freight and passenger rail
improvements in the region, regional ITS efforts, and other planned highway improvements.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-60
• Continuation of the FAST Corridor Partnership, which has been functioning since 1995 and is
working on determining appropriate project level solutions to regional freight mobility issues.
Local freight improvement projects identified at this time include additional rail lines for both the BNSF
and UPRR lines. BNSF has plans to add a third and a fourth track to its mainline along the western edge
of the City. UPRR also has plans to add a third additional track to its mainline that runs parallel to and is
in close proximity to the BNSF mainline. A grade separation of the BNSF and UPRR mainlines at South
180th Street in Tukwila (S.W. 43rd Street in Renton) was completed in 2003. These improvements are a
constructive first step toward improving rail freight travel along the western boundary of the City of
Renton and associated freight rail travel passing through Renton.
The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB):
• develops and maintains a comprehensive and coordinated state program to facilitate freight
movement between and among local, national and international markets;
• works to find solutions that lessen the impact of the movement of freight on local communities;
• proposes policies, projects, corridors, and funding to the state legislature to promote strategic
investments in a statewide freight mobility transportation system; and
• proposes projects that lessen the impact of freight movement on local communities.
In 2003, the FMSIB selected the SW 27th /Strander Boulevard project to receive $4,000,000. It is
anticipated these funds will be programmed by 2006.
FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION
The Financing and Implementation Chapter outlines the strategies and actions to finance and implement
the transportation improvements and programs planned as part of the City of Renton's transportation plan.
Renton will meet transportation needs through arterial, transit, high occupancy vehicle, non-motorized
improvements, travel demand management programs, and airport, truck and rail plans as outlined in
previous discussion of the transportation plan. The Financing and Implementation Chapter includes:
• Goals, objectives and policies relating to financing and implementation of the
transportation plan.
• Information on current revenue sources and future revenues.
• Assessment of Renton's 20-year transportation needs and funding capability.
• Assessment of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with regard
to transportation improvements and programs identified in this document.
• Strategies and actions for financing and implementing the transportation plan over the next
20 years.
• Identifying future ongoing work needed to finance and implement the transportation plan.
Objectives
The Financing and Implementation Chapter is based on the following objectives:
T-V: Pursue adequate funding for transportation improvements from all potential sources in an
efficient and equitable manner.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-61
T-W: Develop a staging and implementation plan that expedites transportation system improvement
projects that i) improve HOV flow, ii) improve transit service, iii) improve pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and iv) provide neighborhood protection against the impacts of through traffic.
Policies
Policy T-64. To support economic
development, growth related traffic
improvements should be funded by a
combination of impact fees charged to new
development and business license fees.
Policy T-65. Coordinate equitable
public/private partnerships to help pay for
transportation improvements.
Policy T-66. Pursue federal, state and local
sources of funding (e.g. loans, matching funds)
for transportation improvements.
Policy T-67. Establish a mechanism to provide
multi-jurisdictional cooperation to fund
transportation improvements. This could
include establishing joint and/or coordinated
transportation mitigation systems with other
jurisdictions.
Policy T-68. Create a funding mechanism that
can be applied across boundaries to address the
impact of growth outside the city limits on the
City's transportation system.
Transportation Program Costs
To determine transportation financing needs, a twenty-year (2002 to 2022) program (including arterial,
HOV, transit and non-motorized components identified previously in this document) was established, and a
planning level cost estimate prepared. Also included as an element of the 20-year funding needs are annual
transportation programs that include: transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance; traffic
operations and safety projects and programs; Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip
Reduction programs; neighborhood livability projects and programs; and, ongoing project development.
These annual programs support and supplement the Street Network, HOV, Transit and Non-motorized
Elements and are a necessary part of maintaining transportation level of service standards.
The total cost of the 20-year transportation plan is estimated at $134 million. The costs of the various
components of this plan are summarized in Table 8.1. The costs for the arterial, HOV and non-motorized
components represent Renton's costs (including Renton's share of responsibility under joint projects with
WSDOT and other local jurisdictions). This cost does not include costs of transportation projects that are
the responsibility of the state, King County, and other cities (Newcastle, Tukwila, and Kent). The transit
costs include only local match for Renton's local feeder system improvements, park-and-ride lots, signal
priority, and transit amenities.
Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement of the 20-year transportation plan
and costs.
Inventory of Funding Sources
Having established a 20-year transportation funding level of $134 million, an annual funding level of $6.7
million can be determined. Sources of revenue to provide this annual funding need are identified on Table
8.2.
The Business License Fee is an annual per capita fee assessed to all businesses within the City of Renton.
Currently, 85% of the annual revenue generated from this fee is dedicated to fund transportation
improvements. The Business License Fee is assumed to contribute 28% of the future annual funding level.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-62
TABLE 8.1
RENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Arterial Plan: = $ 60,000,000
HOV Plan: = $ 26,000,000
Transit Plan: = $ 15,000,000
Non-motorized Plan: = $ 4,500,000
Annual Programs: = $ 28,500,000
Total 20-Year Cost = $ 134,000,000
ATTACHMENT E
XI-63
TABLE 8.2
CITY OF RENTON
SOURCE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
Annual 20-Year
Business License Fee $ 1.88 million $ 37.6 million
Half-Cent Gas Tax $ 0.35 million $ 7.0 million
Grants $ 3.90 million $ 78.0 million
Developer Mitigation $ 0.57 million * $ 11.4 million *
TOTAL FUNDS: $ 6.70 million $ 134.0 million
* In addition, there will be site-specific mitigation.
The Half-Cent Gas Tax is a portion of the State gas tax revenue that is distributed to local jurisdictions
based on population. The Half-Cent Gas Tax is assumed to remain at its current level and contribute 5.2%
of the future annual funding level.
The City of Renton has aggressively pursued federal and state grants in the past, which is assumed to
continue, thus providing 58% of the future annual funding level. Examples of federal grants include the
Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ), and Transportation
Enhancements Program, which are awarded regionally by the Puget Sound Regional Council and bridge
replacement, road safety, and railroad crossing improvement programs administered by WSDOT. State
grants include those provided by the Transportation Partnership Program (TPP), the Arterial Improvement
Program (AIP), and Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Program (PSMP), which are administered by the
Transportation Improvement Board.
Developer mitigation revenue is obtained by the City of Renton through an assessment on development
city-wide, based on the number of daily vehicle trips generated by a specific development multiplied by a
fee per vehicle trip. Developer mitigation is assumed to contribute 9% of the future annual funding level. It
should be noted that developer mitigation is not a reliable (or stable) source of transportation funds (as
required by GMA). The irregularity of private development projects and thus uneven flow of mitigation
revenue contribute to the unreliability of developer mitigation. It should also be noted that, in addition to a
mitigation fee, private development approval will be conditioned on site-specific improvements to ensure
that on-site and adjacent off-site transportation facility impacts are mitigated.
Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are formed by property owners to provide funds for the portion of the
cost of improvement projects that benefit the properties. Petitions from two-thirds of the property owners
of property equal to two-thirds of the assessed valuation of the LID area are required in order to form an
LID. Because it cannot be determined when there will be enough petitioners to form an LID and, therefore,
ATTACHMENT E
XI-64
it is not known when an LID can be formed to make improvements, LIDs have not been included as a
source of transportation funds.
The above revenue sources are projected to remain approximately the same over the next 20 years, though
the percent contribution from individual sources may change. However, trends in transportation financing
are becoming apparent, which could affect the City of Renton's transportation revenue. The trends include:
declining revenue available from several existing sources, such as the half-cent gas tax; transportation needs
growing faster than available revenues; local, state, and federal requirements on transportation
improvements lengthening the design process and increasing cost; the undetermined potential for new
funding sources; and, the continued inability of regional agencies to address regional transportation needs.
Ongoing transportation planning work will include a review and update of current revenue sources to reflect
federal, state, and regional decisions regarding these revenue sources.
Funding Program
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires “an analysis of funding capability to judge needs against
probable funding resources.” This includes development of a "multi-year financing plan" based on the
needs identified in the transportation plan with "appropriate parts" serving as the basis for the Six-year
Transportation Program required by the RCW for cities.
The following presents the City of Renton's transportation finance plan (as required by GMA) and the
underlying assumptions, which are:
to provide both a 20-year and a six-year transportation improvement program
establish consistency between the six-year and 20-year programs.
A 20-year transportation program (comprised of improvements discussed previously in the Street Network,
HOV, Transit, and Non-motorized Chapters and annual transportation programs) and a planning level cost
estimate of $134 million (summarized on Table 8.2) have been established first. Based on the 20-year
funding level of $134 million, an annual funding level of $6.7 million was determined. Having established
an annual funding rate it can reasonably be assumed that if this funding level is maintained, if the facilities
being funded are consistent with the 20-year plan, and if transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously
emphasized, it should be reasonable to assume that the level of service can be maintained for the
intervening years with the established funding rate.
The City of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is part of an on-going process
intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Six-Year TIP is
also linked with various state and federal funding programs, regional/inter/jurisdictional planning and
coordination processes, and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Projects are developed and prioritized based on both specific goals to be achieved by the program and on
general programming considerations. Those general programming considerations are:
Planning. How a project fits with or addresses identified future transportation goals, demands, and
planning processes must be evaluated on both a local and regional level. This is strongly influenced by
ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans.
Financing. Many projects are dependent on receiving outside grants, formation of LIDs, or the receipt
of mitigation funds. Prioritization has to take into account the peculiarities of each of the various fund
sources and the probabilities of when, and how much, money will be available.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-65
Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with, or interdependent on, other projects taking place, it is
reflected in their relative priorities.
Past Commitments. The level of previous commitment made by the City in terms of resources,
legislative actions or interlocal agreements also must be taken into consideration in prioritizing TIP
projects.
In addition to the general considerations discussed above, there are five specific project categories through
which the TIP is evaluated and analyzed. They are:
• Preservation of Existing Infrastructure
• Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management
• Community Livability and Enhancement
• Economic Development
• Operations and Safety
These categories provide a useful analysis tool and represent goals developed through an evaluation of the
City's transportation program in response to input from citizens and local officials and to State and federal
legislation.
Taken as a whole, the five categories provide a framework for evaluating projects both individually and as
part of a strategy that seeks to meet and balance the transportation needs of Renton during a time of
increasing transportation demand, decreasing revenues, and growing environmental concerns.
Although each project can be identified with an important concern that allows it to be classified into one of
the five categories, most projects are intended to address, and are developed to be compatible with, multiple
goals.
Preservation of the existing infrastructure is a basic need that must be met by the program. The Mayor,
City Council and Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee have all addressed the importance of
sustaining strong programs in this project category. The State Growth Management Act also requires
jurisdictions to assess and address the funding required to maintain their existing transportation system.
Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects and programs are oriented
toward "moving people" through a balanced transportation system that involves multiple modes of
transportation and provides alternatives to the existing heavy reliance on the single occupant vehicle
(SOV). Included are projects that facilitate the movement of transit and carpools, and programs that
promote the use of high occupancy vehicles (HOV's) and reduce the numbers of SOV's. The Federal
Transportation Efficiency Act, the State and Federal Clean Air legislation and the State Commute Trip
Reduction Act have added momentum to regional efforts and placed requirements on local
jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these transportation elements.
Community livability and enhancement consists of projects that have been developed with major
emphasis on addressing community quality of life issues by improving and/or protecting residential
livability while providing necessary transportation system improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian
projects are included in this category.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-66
Economic development projects and programs involve transportation improvements necessitated by
new development that is taking place. Thus, a significant source of local funding for these projects is
projected to come from mitigation payments and from specific access needs financed by new
development in the City of Renton.
Operations and safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the
transportation system and 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 2005-2010 2006-2011 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 2006-2011 2005-2010 TIP projects under each
of the chapters of the Transportation Element.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-67
TABLE 8.3
CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
(2006-20112005-2010)
ATTACHMENT E
XI-68
ATTACHMENT E
XI-69
ATTACHMENT E
XI-70
Street Network
• South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (TIP #1012)
• Rainier Avenue – SW 4th Place to SW 7th Street (TIP #1611)
• Grady Way – Main Avenue to West City Limits (TIP #3534)
• Lind Avenue S.W. – S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 43rd Street (TIP #4544)
• 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 #2947)
•Benson Road – South 26th Street to South 31st Street (TIP #46)
• N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th Corridor Improvements (TIP # 98)
• Rainier Avenue Corridor Study/Improvements (TIP #76)
• Lake Washington Blvd. – Park Avenue North to Coulon Park (TIP #3736)
• Park Avenue North/Sunset Boulevard – North 6th to Duvall Avenue N.E. (TIP #4443)
•S.W. 7th Street/Lind Avenue S.W. (TIP #55)
• South Renton Neighborhood Improvements (#1213)
• N.E. 4th/Hoquiam Avenue N.E. (TIP #1516)
Also included are expenditures for study of the SR 169 Corridor (TIP project #11).
Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial Circulation Program (TIP #1817), 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 #1415) 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 #85)
• Renton Urban Shuttle (RUSH) Program: operation of the shuttle bus service within Renton. (TIP
#54)
•Transit Priority Signal System: development and implementation of traffic signal programming to give
priority to transit vehicles. (TIP #49)
Also, the HOV Chapter improvements identified below will be designed to enhance transit service.
HOV
• SR-167 / S.W. 27th 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.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
ATTACHMENT E
XI-71
Non-Motorized
• Benson Road Improvements – South 26th to Main Avenue (TIP #1746)
• CBD Bike and Pedestrian Connections (TIP #26)
Also included in the proposed Six-Year TIP is the Walkway Program (TIP #910), 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 #3635) 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 pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the Long Range Parks,
Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, administered by the Community Services Department, would be
valuable components of the transportation system, and, therefore, are coordinated with the Transportation
Plan. The Long Range, Parks, Recreation, 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 #3130)
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
ATTACHMENT E
XI-72
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 2005-20102006-2011 Six-Year TIP includes 56 53 individual projects and
programs, with a total estimated cost of $179.15 28 million. Of this total cost, approximately $164.2161.6
million is to be expended over the 2005-2010 2006-2011 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 $15 18 million represents expenditures prior to year 20052006.
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 $124 121 million more than
the projected revenues. Of this $124 121 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 interjurisdictional funding mechanisms, such as payment of mitigation fees to address
impacts of growth within adjacent jurisdictions that affect the City of Renton.
Update transportation priorities 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.
Continue to work with regional agencies to encourage them to find 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
ATTACHMENT E
XI-73
mitigation policy serves as a framework for the citywide mitigation payment system that was adopted by
the City in 1996. This mitigation policy includes the City of Renton:
Developing a citywide 20-year transportation system improvement plan (defined in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan).
Determining the cost of the citywide 20-year transportation improvements to support new
development.
Establishing a fee for developments' pro-rated share of the cost of the citywide 20-year
transportation improvements (in addition to site-specific mitigation required by the City). This
mitigation fee would be established during the SEPA review process and paid during the project
development process.
Continuing the current established business license fee and percentage of the business license fee
allocated for transportation purposes as has been the custom in the past.
Having the flexibility to modify the citywide transportation plan as needed to address
environmental/regional coordination issues.
Approving future development conditioned upon site specific improvements to ensure that on-site
and adjacent transportation facility impacts are mitigated, and the payment of the mitigation fee as
the development's fair share contribution towards: 1) ensuring that the cumulative impacts of
development can be mitigated; and 2) maintaining the City of Renton adopted level of service
standard. Site specific improvements could include construction of additional traffic lanes and/or
traffic signals.
Mitigation Payment System
The development mitigation fairshare cost has been established at $75 per daily vehicle trip.
The developer mitigation fee is based on the total daily increase in vehicle trips generated by the specific
development project multiplied by the vehicle trip rate fee. In addition to this fee, there may be site-specific
improvements required by the City, such as construction or contribution towards construction of additional
traffic lanes and/or traffic signals, to mitigate on-site and adjacent facility impacts. (New business
development will also pay the annual per capita business license as currently required of all businesses in
the City of Renton).
Additional information on the determination of the mitigation trip rate fee is contained in the Renton
Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document.
A development may qualify for reduction of the $75 per vehicle trip mitigation fee through certain credits
for development incentives, construction of needed transportation improvements (arterial, HOV, transit),
through public/private partnerships, and transportation demand management programs. Specific credits and
the amount of reduction in the mitigation trip rate fee that could result from such credits will be determined
on a case by case basis during the development permitting process. The Mitigation Payment System
provides flexibility to modify the basic trip rate fee as needed to respond to the effect that credits may have
on developer mitigation as a funding source.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-74
Concurrency Management System
The Growth Management Act (GMA) describes concurrency as the situation where adequate public
facilities are available when the impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. This
description includes the concept of available public facilities. The GMA defines "available public
facilities" as facilities or services in place, or a financial commitment in place, to provide the facilities
within a specified time. For transportation, the specified time is six years from time of development.
City of Renton policies that support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land
Use Element and in this Element. To address concurrency under the GMA and City of Renton policies, a
concurrency management system has been developed for the City of Renton that is based on the following
process:
• The City of Renton will adopt a multi-modal Transportation Plan that will be consistent with regional
plans and those of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the Transportation Plan will be
defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The City of Renton Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy, although it differs from the
traditional LOS for arterials, is consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide
Planning Policies and will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan.
• If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will
adjust its LOS policy accordingly.
• The Transportation Plan will include a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy.
One of the fund sources will be mitigation fees collected from developers as a condition of land use
development within the City of Renton. The approval of the development will be conditioned upon
the payment of this Transportation Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent
facility impacts.
• The City of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the improvement elements of the
citywide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS
and land use development is met.
• The City of Renton will establish concurrency by annually testing the citywide Transportation Plan as
funded in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level
of Service standard. The City of Renton will adjust the transportation improvement plan as necessary
to meet the LOS standard.
• Based upon the annual test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels
included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an
application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency
requirements.
Transportation Concurrency Regulations (Ordinance No. 4708, adopted 3-2-1998) and Guidelines and
Procedures for Monitoring Transportation Concurrency (adopted 4-6-1998) comprise the procedures,
standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are
available to serve new land use development.
ATTACHMENT E
XI-75
As specified in the Regulations and Guidelines and Procedures, a concurrency test is conducted by the City
of Renton for each non-exempt development activity. The concurrency test determines consistency with the
adopted citywide Level of Service standard and the Concurrency Management System, using rules and
procedures established by the City of Renton. The concurrency test includes technical review of a
development activity by the City of Renton to determine if the transportation system has adequate or unused
or uncommitted capacity, or will have adequate capacity, to accommodate vehicle trips generated by the
proposed development, without causing the level of service standard to decline below adopted standards, at
the time of development or within six years. A written finding of concurrency is provided by the City prior
to the approval of the development permit. If the development activity fails the concurrency test, the City
allows the development applicant to submit alternative data, provide a traffic mitigation plan, or reduce the
size of the development project in order to achieve concurrency.
Monitoring, and evaluation of the City of Renton's Concurrency Management System and Transportation
Concurrency Regulations will be reviewed as part of ongoing transportation work.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The Environmental and Natural Resources Chapter describes objectives, policies, and strategies to help
protect Renton’s natural resources and Renton residents from unacceptable air and water quality impacts of
the transportation system. Clean air and water are necessary for healthful living in an urban society.
Objectives
T-X: Protect and promote clean air to ensure a healthful environment.
T-Y: Reduce vehicular emissions by encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and non-
motorized transportation usage.
T-Z: Ensure the long-term protection of the quality of water resources of the City of Renton.
T-AA: Reduce the impact on water quality from vehicular pollutants associated with run-off from
impervious transportation facility surfaces.
T-BB: Preserve and protect natural resources (particularly critical areas and wildlife habitat).
Policies
Policy T-69. Promote programs which maintain
mobile source pollutant levels at or below those
prescribed by the EPA, State Department of
Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.
Policy T-70. Comply with the stipulations
described in the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for air quality compliance.
Policy T-71. Promote water quality by
encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling,
transit, and non-motorized transportation usage.
Policy T-72. Incorporate in transportation
facilities vehicular pollutant and surface water
run-off management and treatment techniques
that maximize water quality.
Policy T-73. Comply with the stipulations
described in federal, state, and local water quality
standards and regulations.
Policy T-74. Develop transportation plans and
projects to comply with City, state, and federal
regulations that address critical areas and wildlife
habitat.
Adopted 11/01/04
XI-76
Also see related Policies in the Environmental
Element, the Land Use Element, and the King
County Countywide Planning Policies, which by
this reference, are incorporated in this Chapter.
Air Quality -- Implementation Plan
The City will subscribe to the plans, policies, and programs catalogued in the State Implementation Plan for
air quality non-attainment areas. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies will be
encouraged, including the Commute Trip Reduction Law. Existing vehicle programs such as the winter
oxygenated fuels and vehicle inspections will be continued, supported, and updated as requirements
demand.
Ongoing transportation planning work will include the review of the latest information from state and local
agencies regarding air quality non-attainment areas, severity of violations and implementation plans.
Improving Water Quality
The City of Renton will comply with federal, state, and local plans, policies and programs for water quality.
The City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on increasing the availability and use
of HOV, transit, and non-motorized transportation modes and transportation demand management
strategies. The intent of this program is to reduce vehicular traffic which will make it possible to limit the
expansion of the existing roadway system and, in certain locations, limit additional impervious surfaces.
This, in turn, will reduce vehicular pollutants and their effect on water quality.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
A multitude of agencies are involved in transportation planning and improvement. To become better
integrated into the regional transportation system, Renton needs to strengthen its role in the region,
especially in South King County, East King County, and the Puget Sound area, and participate in regional
forums as transportation decisions are made. This is particularly important since a disproportionate number
of the vehicles on Renton's arterials are pass-through traffic. Also, Renton continues to be a major regional
employment center and decisions made about future transportation systems for the Puget Sound area will
directly impact the future of Renton's commercial and industrial base.
With requirements of the Growth Management Act mandating concurrency between land use and
transportation planning, the kind of interjurisdictional cooperation envisioned in the policies has become
more of a reality. However, in this environment it will become increasingly important for Renton to
support negotiation tools such as interlocal agreements, and participate in interjurisdictional decision
making.
Therefore, the City of Renton participates in regional forums and supports transportation plans that preserve
the livability of our neighborhoods, maintain the economic vitality of our City, and provide for an improved
environment for future generations. This will be accomplished by:
• providing a multi-modal regional plan with HOV, transit and other modes serving Renton; and
• providing regional financial strategies which encourage other than SOV travel.
The City of Renton has prepared and adopted a multi-modal Transportation Plan, which is consistent with
regional plans and plans of neighboring cities.
Adopted 11/01/04
XI-77
Objectives
Objectives and Policies which address the need for coordination between regional and local agencies with
respect to transportation planning and operation needs are presented below:
T-CC: Coordinate transportation operations, planning and improvements with other transportation
authorities and municipalities.
Policies
Policy T-75. A sub-regional transportation
system should be designed and implemented in
cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions.
Policy T-76. WSDOT should provide funding for
and construct grade-separated inside HOV lanes
with direct access (or barrier-separated HOV
facility) in the SR-167 corridor from Auburn to
Renton and I-405 corridor, extending from Sea-
Tac Airport north to Bothell.
Policy T-77. The Regional Transit Plan (RTP)
should include regional express bus service to
downtown Renton.
Policy T-78. Provide park-and-ride lots in
unincorporated King County to intercept pass
through traffic affecting the Renton street system.
Transit service to these park-and-ride lots should
be frequent in order to encourage transit usage.
Policy T-79. King County Transit (Metro) should
provide intra-Renton bus service to serve local
activity centers and employment centers, and to
provide frequent, convenient access to future
commuter rail stations and light rail transit
stations.
Policy T-80. The City of Renton, in collaboration
with King County Transit (Metro), should place
high priority in providing transit service to areas
experiencing high residential and commercial
growth.
Policy T-81. The Regional Transit Authority
(Sound Transit) should provide transit service and
transit-oriented capital improvements in Renton
consistent in size, scope, and cost with those
proposed in the voter-approved Sound Move.
Policy T-82. Give priority to working with King
County to ensure that King County policies
regarding transportation consistency/concurrency
in Renton’s Potential Annexation Areas are
compatible with Renton’s transportation plans and
goals.
Also see related Policies in the Transit Section
and King County Countywide Planning Policies.
Current Coordination Activities
The City of Renton has been actively involved in an ongoing dialogue with state, regional, and county
agencies -- as well as adjacent jurisdictions and business and community groups in Renton -- concerning
Renton's transportation planning goals and objectives. Coordination efforts underway include participation
in the following primary forums. (Note: not all committees are listed.)
State Coordination [Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)]
I-405 Corridor Study. The City is participating in this WSDOT study along with representatives of affected
jurisdictions adjacent to I-405. Renton elected officials serve on the study’s Executive Committee and
Renton staff serve on the Steering Committee and Technical Committee. The purpose of the study is to work
with local jurisdictions to define transportation needs in the I-405 Corridor from Tukwila to Swamp Creek,
and to develop transportation improvement projects for the corridor that complement local plans, goals, and
objectives.
Adopted 11/01/04
XI-78
Regional Coordination
South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd). The purpose of the group is to serve as a central
forum for information-sharing, consensus-building, coordination to resolve transportation issues, and to
implement transportation programs and projects that benefit the region in general and South King County
area jurisdictions in particular. Voting members include King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn,
Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Milton,
Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila. Non-Voting members include Sound Transit, Pierce
Transit, the Port of Seattle, the Puget Sound Regional Council, WSDOT, and the State Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB).
Eastside Transportation Partnership (ETP). ETP is a coalition of Eastside cities (similar to SCATBd), with
representatives from Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, Bothell, Mercer Island, Sammamish,
Woodinville, Newcastle, and Renton. Representatives from WSDOT, Sound Transit, King County, PSRC,
TIB, and Snohomish County also are participants. Renton's primary affiliation and purpose for participating
in the group is to coordinate Eastside and South County issues.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The PSRC is a regional council of governments and the local MPO
and RTPO, with representatives from every agency, jurisdiction, and governing body in King County, Pierce
County, Kitsap County and Snohomish County. Staff level technical committees meet regularly to discuss a
wide range of transportation topics related to the region's long range growth and transportation strategy as
envisioned under VISION 2020 and Destination 2030, including finance, transportation improvement
programs, commute trip reduction issues, regional transportation forecast data, air quality, and other issues
requiring regional coordination.
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority/Sound Transit. The City coordinates regularly with Sound
Transit staff, as Sound Transit is the regional transit service provider. For long range planning, Renton and
other jurisdictions are working with Sound Transit to implement Phase 1 of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound
Move), which includes Regional Express bus service and associated capital facilities, and HOV/transit
exclusive interchanges and/or arterial HOV improvements in Renton.
County Coordination
King County Metro. The City is also coordinating with King County Transit (Metro) in the development of
local bus service plans that will complement the Sound Transit regional transit service concept.
King County Public Works Directors. The City works as a member of this group on numerous and varied
transportation action issues of concern to local jurisdictions including making recommendations for projects
to be funded with the regional distribution of federal transportation funds.
Commute Trip Reduction. Another group within King County is responsible for coordinating regional and
South County Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) issues in cooperation with local jurisdictions and King
County. Working groups have been established for the purpose of coordinating state-required CTR
ordinance and plan development/adoption by local jurisdictions and King County. With most local
jurisdictions having successfully adopted local CTR ordinances, the group is now focusing on the successful
implementation of the ordinance requirements (working with affected employers) and on starting a parking
review regional coordinating effort.
Adopted 11/01/04
XI-79
Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions
The City of Renton is coordinating and will continue to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions through
interlocal agreements and through appropriate regional, county, local, and state forums to assure consistency
between plans, and to work out acceptable and appropriate agreements regarding local plans.
Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan
The City of Renton has adopted a position that specifies the elements that must be included in a regional
transit plan in order for the City to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The City Council
supports the following elements in the voter-approved regional system plan (Sound Move):
1. A bus element, with early emphasis on express bus service and TSM improvements proposed for the
South County area;
2. A plan that increases local circulation transit services and feeder service connections and provides a
variety of modal options;
3. High Capacity Transit (HCT) to urban and employment centers, including Renton; and
4. A plan that provides convenient connections within the regional bus service, local bus service, and
between the light rail line and the commuter rail system.
Renton is coordinating with Sound Transit to ensure commensurate transit services and/or roadway/freeway
improvements should any elements of the approved regional plan that benefit Renton not be implemented.
Strategies to Address Inconsistencies
Inconsistencies between Renton, the State, King County, Sound Transit, and other local jurisdictions will be
addressed by interlocal agreement as specified in King County Growth Management policies.
ONGOING TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORK
This Transportation Element includes a number of recommendations for ongoing transportation work. This
additional work will include continued refinement of certain elements of the transportation plan and
development of more detailed strategies and programs to implement the transportation plan. The specific
transportation planning tasks are summarized in this section.
Street Network
Level of Service (LOS)
Continue to refine and update Renton’s LOS policy to reflect new information on regional and local
transportation plans.
Arterial Plan
Conduct further analysis of the improvements included in the Arterial Plan to verify physical, operational,
and financial feasibility. The analyses will include development of conceptual plans and cost estimates,
assessment of neighborhood and environmental impacts, and the development of more detailed scopes of
improvement, as appropriate. Adjust the Arterial Plan, as needed, to reflect the results on this analysis.
Re-evaluate residential, commercial, and industrial access street function definitions and classifications.
Adopted 11/01/04
XI-80
Transit
Transit Plan
Update and revise Renton’s Transit Plan to reflect new information regarding the Regional Transportation
Plan (Sound Move).
Conduct further analysis of the local feeder system transit improvements identified in the City of Renton
Transit Needs Assessment in order to verify operational and financial feasibility. (Includes the development
and incorporation of more detailed bus routing and dial-a-ride needs.)
Level of Service
Continue to refine the transit index of Renton’s LOS standard to address transit service frequency.
HOV
HOV Plan
Continue the assessment of criteria for HOV facility planning, design, and operation.
Conduct further analysis of the HOV improvements identified in the HOV Plan in order to verify physical,
operational, and financial feasibility. Also, investigate other potential locations for HOV improvements, and
define scope and cost of the proposed improvements in more detail, as appropriate.
Level of Service
Continue to update the HOV index of Renton’s LOS standards, if needed.
Non-motorized
Neighborhood and Regional Access
Based on the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study, determine additional bicycle and
pedestrian facilities that support Renton’s access needs and complement the Regional Transit Plan and local
transit system.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan
Update the routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan to reflect the reassessment of
neighborhood and regional access needs. Identify, in cooperation with other City of Renton departments and
citizen groups, the facilities that could be included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program.
TDM/CTR
Existing Parking Supply and Demand
Inventory existing citywide on-site and off-site parking facilities to determine number of spaces and
utilization, if needed during future review of parking policies, guidelines, and regulations.
Parking Policy Review and Revisions
Continue to review, update and/or revise Renton parking policies to complement other elements of the
Renton Transportation Plan and to be consistent with regional parking policies. Working in regional forums
propose parking regulation revisions to be worked out on a sub-regional basis.
Employer Mode Split
With assistance from King County, evaluate updated Renton employers CTR data and revise citywide
employer mode split if needed.
Adopted 11/01/04
XI-81
TDM/CTR Programs
Renton's CTR ordinance was amended in February, 1998. Public and private employers have developed
programs for complying with the ordinance. Annual review of these programs will be conducted to monitor
progress toward meeting CTR goals.
Parking Management Ordinance
Continue to review the City of Renton parking regulations for revisions to complement the Renton Land Use
Element and Transportation Element and to be consistent with regional and other local jurisdictional parking
policies.
Airport
Continue to update the goals, objectives, policies, functional requirements, and implementation strategies of
the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element as needed.
Freight
Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users
Update assessment of rail use compatibility with current land uses and FAST implementation strategies, as
needed.
Regional Accessibility
Continue to review, and update if needed, the assessment of Renton rail use with respect to implications of
the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move) and to reflect Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
(Sound Transit) decisions.
Freight and Passenger Rail Use
Review and update the assessment of freight and passenger rail needs, as appropriate.
Financing and Implementation
Program and Project Costs
Update the scope and cost of improvements determined from the continued feasibility analysis of the arterial
and HOV elements. Also, update the scope and cost of transit, non-motorized and other programs included
in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. Update the cost of the 20-year transportation plan, as
needed.
Mitigation Process
Adjust the citywide developer mitigation fee structure, if needed, to reflect revisions to the financing plan
resulting from further analysis of the Transportation Plan improvements and costs, and funding sources.
Funding Program
Adjust the priority of projects or programs identified under the Arterial, Transit, HOV, Non-Motorized, and
TDM chapters as needed. Review the multi-year (20 years) financing plan and assess funding needs for the
identified projects or programs. Include appropriate projects and programs in the City's Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Identify potential sources of additional funds, if funding from
current sources is not adequate, and to reflect federal, State, regional or local decisions regarding availability
of current sources.
Concurrency
Continue to review, and revise if needed, the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the
Concurrency Management System (CMS) and update, as necessary, the rules, regulations and ordinances that
Adopted 11/01/04
XI-82
implement the concurrency requirements. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions regarding CMS
requirements and regulations.
Environmental and Natural Resources
Continue to review and revise, as needed, the objectives, policies and strategies to minimize or mitigate
impacts of transportation plans on Renton’s environment and natural resources. Review the latest air and
water quality implementation plans from local and state agencies, and update if needed.
Intergovernmental Coordination
Continue to coordinate Renton's Transportation Element with adjacent jurisdictions' transportation and land
use goals, countywide policies, regional land use and transportation plans, and statewide goals outlined in the
GMA. Regulations, facilities to be provided, and development actions by regional and other local
jurisdictions may change, which could affect the City of Renton. Pursue strategies to address
inconsistencies, i.e. through interlocal agreements, and adjust Renton’s Transportation Element, as needed.