The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-05-006Dan Peck 6101 NE 4th Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Dawn Courier 19815 98th Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Marilyn Whitney 969 Shelton Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Alan & Marilyn Johnson 13505 Maple Valley Hwy Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) JJ Stanker 5912 92nd Avenue SE PARTIES OF RECORD CITY INITIATED COMP PLAN AMEND LUA05-006, CPA Richard Underwood 2314 NE 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Patricia Patricelli 9507 S 198th Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Joanne Scholen 19418 Talbot Road S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Scott Duncan Cindy Merritt 14408 SE 100th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Pat Bader 19249 99th Place S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Shelly Jackson 3915 108th Avenue NE ste: #B- 304 Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Robert Nielsen 3209 SE 6th Street Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) Bill Williamson Williamson Law Office Mercer Island, WA 98040-5037 (party of record) 3316 SE 6th Street Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) 701 5th Avenue ste: #5500 Seattle, WA 98104 Yolanda Lepley 4457 Tokul Road SE Snoqualmie, WA 98065 (party of record) Betty & Lee Dellinger 6425 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Terri Bowen 315 Taylor Avenue NW Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Ron Fouty 2130 Gingko Street SE Auburn, WA 98092 (party of record) Updated: 10/31/05 Marlin & Barbara Gilbert 3624 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) Mark Gardner & Christie Mueller 6841 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Brian Casserly 420 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Dave C. Hardy 19235 108th Avenue SE ste: #206 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (party of record) Robert & Gilla Bachellerie 6417 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Pyuong Su Bonner PO Box 853 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) James Dawson 58 Logan Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Martin & Anne Healy 314 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (Page 1 of 3) PARTIES OF RECORD CITY INITIATED COMP PLAN AMEND LUA05-006, CPA Shirley Hunter Jennifer Jorgenson 215 S Tobin Street 205 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (party of record) Gloria & George Mehrens Ron & Betsy Munson Pamela Nel 316 S Tobin Street 623 Cedar Avenue S 563 Bremerton Place NE Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Marilyn Redmond Glenn Reynolds Thomas Rivily 2914 108th Avenue E 55 Logan Avenue S 17035 300th Avenue NE Edgewood, WA 98372 Renton, WA 98055 Duvall, WA 98019 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Fred & Erna Sandoy Richard Stauff Richard Storwick 220 Shattuck Avenue S 13813 139th Avenue SE PO Box 692 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98059 Anacortes, WA 98221 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Robert Stuth & Catherine Ploue-Tom Tobacco Jennifer Zug Smith 1701 Lake Avenue S 117 Bu rnett Place S 402 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Randy Matheson Ryan Zulauf Jim Hanson Community Relations -Renton City of Renton -Airport Hanson Consulting School District 17446 Mallard Cove Lane 300 SW 7th Street , Mt. Vernon, WA 98274 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) tel: 360-422-5056 (party of record) (contact) O.J. Harper Cherie Lang Ray Giometti 200 S Tobin Street 6615 Ripley Lane 323 Pelly Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (owner / applicant) (party of record) (party of record) Greg & Sherre Piantanida David & Sally McCray Gregg Smith & Kelly Williams 7011 Ripley Lane 6815 Ripley Lane 6811 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Olaf & Nancy Manz Susan Lang Gerald Barber 7009 Ripley Lane 7023 Ripley Lane 7023 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Updated: 10/31/05 (Page 2 of 3) · , Pierre & Christi Thiry 6619 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Marjorie Grundhaus 7001 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Craig Magnusson 6433 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Robert & Dita Dye 7029 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Scott Gulrek 6625 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 10/31/05 PARTIES OF RECORD CITY INITIATED COMP PLAN AMEND LUA05-006, CPA Harold Bruce 6631 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Priscilla, Richard & Gregory Elfers 6823 Ripley Lane George & Nancy Johnston 6831 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) John & Nancy Lorge 6437 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Louis & Connie Williams 7005 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Vicente & Jennifer Farinas 6611 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) John Houtz 6809 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Jeff Pearce 6421 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Tommy Jones 6603 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 3 of 3) December 12, 2005 Ordinance #5175 Annexation: Lindberg, 138th Ave SE & SE 132nd St Ordinance #5176 Annexation: Lindberg, R-8 Zoning Ordinance #5177 Budget: Fire Prevention Fees Ordinance #5178 Budget: Golf Course Greens Fees Ordinance #5179 Budget: Utilities Fees Ordinance #5180 Budget: 2006 Annual City of Renton Ordinance #5181 Comprehensive Plan: 2005 Amendments Ordinance #5182 Rezone: Griffin Home & Vicinity, N 26th St, R-l to R-4 L-l~J~·-tit?' f) 0 ~ Renton City Council Minutes Page 452 An ordinance was read annexing approximately 10.6 acres generally located north of the centerline of SE 132nd St. and east of the eastern edge of the 138th Ave. SE right-of-way (Lindberg Annexation). MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCil.. ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of approximately 9.72 acres located east of 138th Ave. SE and north of SE 132nd St. annexed within the City of Renton from R-4 (Urban Residential-four dwelling units per acre; King County zoning) to R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) zoning; Lindberg Annexation. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCil.. ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Section 4-1-150, Fire Prevention Fees, of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by amending the fire prevention fees. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCil.. ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Fee Schedule, of Title V, Finance and Business Regulations, of City Code by increasing certain golf course greens fees. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Sections 8-2-2.G and 8-2-3.E.l of Chapter 2, Storm and Surface Water Drainage; Sections 8-4-24 and 8-4-31 of Chapter 4, Water; and Section 8-5-15 of Chapter 5, Sewers of Title vrn (Health and Sanitation) of City Code by increasing fees. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCil.. ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read adopting the annual City of Renton 2006 Budget in the total balanced amount of $172,019,527. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCil.. ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read adopting the 2005 amendments to the City'S 2004 Comprehensive Plan, maps, and data in conjunction therewith. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: SIX A YES: BRIERE, LAW, CLAWSON, NELSON, CORMAN, PALMER; ONE NAY: PERSSON. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Griffin Home and vicinity properties consisting of approximately 6.8 acres located along Lake Washington Blvd. N. and N. 26th St. from R-l (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) to R-4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-05- 006, CPA 2005-M-l, Area B. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCil.. ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. -.. '. December 12,2005 Ordinance #5183 Rezone: Southport Development, COR to UC-N2 Ordinance #5184 Rezone: Jones Ave Properties, Jones Ave NE, R-8 to RC Ordinance #5185 Rezone: Monterey Court Properties, NE 31st St, R-4 to R-l Ordinance #5186 Rezone: NE 28th St & Edmonds Ave Properties, R-8 toR-I Ordinance #5187 Rezone: Maplewood Glen & Vicinity, SE 5th St, R-8 to R-4 Ordinance #5188 Rezone: Panther Creek Wetland, SR-167, R-8 to R-l Ordinance #5189 Rezone: Maplewood Addition, SE 11th St, R-8 to R-4 Ordinance #5190 Comprehensive Plan: 2005 Amendments, R-I and RC Zones Renton City Council Minutes Page 453 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Southport development property consisting of approximately 17 acres located south of Lake Washington from COR (Commercial Office Residential) to UC-N2 (Urban Center -North 2) zoning; LUA-05-oo6, CPA 2005-M-07, Southport. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Jones Ave. properties consisting of approximately 5.4 acres located along Jones Ave. NE from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to RC (Resource Conservation) zoning; LUA-05-OO6, CPA 2oo5-M-l, Area El. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Monterey Court properties located in a native growth protection easement as part of the Brookridge Plat from R-4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre) to R-l (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zoning; LUA-05-006, CPA 2oo5-M-I, Area E2. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the NE 28th St. and Edmonds Ave. properties from R -8 (Residential -eight dwelling units per acre) to R-I (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zoning; LUA-05-oo6, CPA 2005-M-I, Area E3. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Maplewood Glen and vicinity properties from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to R-4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-05-oo6, CPA 2005-M-I, Area L2. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Panther Creek Wetland properties from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to R-I (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zoning; LUA-05-006, CPA 2oo5-M-l, Area P. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Maplewood Addition properties from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to R- 4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-05-OO6, CPA 2005- M-I, Area K3. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by revising land uses in the RC (Resource Conservation) and R-l (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zones. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. , Ilecember 5, 2005 Rezone: Griffin Home & Vicinity, N 26th St, R-l to R-4 l),{~i -O~"OO~ Rezone: Southport Development, COR to UC-N2 Rezone: Jones Ave Properties, Jones Ave NE, R-8 to RC Rezone: Monterey Court Properties, NE 31st St, R-4 to R-l Rezone: NE 28th St & Edmonds Ave Properties, R-8 toR-1 Rezone: Maplewood Glen & Vicinity, SE Sth St, R-8 to R-4 Renton City Council Minutes Page 438 Councilman Law stated that while he supports the primary changes to the Comprehensive Plan, he objects to the portion that includes bringing the West Hill into Renton's Potential Annexation Area. He stated that the timing is wrong, and the City should wait until the Legislature or some other entity comes up with money to help fund that issue. *MOTION CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Griffin Home and vicinity properties consisting of approximately 6.8 acres located along Lake Washington Blvd. N. and N. 26th St. from R-l (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) to R-4 (Residential -four dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-OS- 006, CPA 200S-M-l, Area B. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 121121200S. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Southport development property consisting of approximately 17 acres located south of Lake Washington from COR (Commercial Office Residential) to UC-N2 (Urban Center -North 2) zoning; LUA-OS-006, CPA 200S-M-07, Southport. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 121121200S. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Jones Ave. properties consisting of approximately S.4 acres located along Jones Ave. NE from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to RC (Resource Conservation) zoning; LUA-OS-006, CPA 2ooS-M-l, Area El. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 121121200S. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Monterey Court properties located in a native growth protection easement as part of the Brookridge Plat from R-4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre) to R-l (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zoning; LUA-OS-OO6, CPA 200S-M-1, Area E2. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12112/2OOS. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the NE 28th St. and Edmonds Ave. properties from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to R-1 (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zoning; LUA-OS-006, CPA 200S-M-l, Area E3. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211212OOS. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Maplewood Glen and vicinity properties from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to R-4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-OS-OO6, , CPA 200S-M-l, Area L2. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, . COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL , READING ON 12/1212OOS. CARRIED. .) (ecember 5,2005 Rezone: Panther Creek Wetland, SR-167, R-8 to R-l Rezone: Maplewood Addition, SE lith St, R-8 to R-4 Comprehensive Plan: 2005 Amendments, R-l and RC Zones Planning: Residential Uses in the Commercial Arterial Zone Budget: 2006 Property Tax Levy Ordinance #5168 Budget: 2006 Property Tax Levy Ordinance #5169 Utility: System Development Charges, Annexation Fee Ordinance #5170 Development Services: Deferral of Street Improvements Renton City Council Minutes Page 439 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Panther Creek Wetland properties from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to R-l (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zoning; LUA-05-OO6, CPA 2oo5-M-l, Area P. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211212005. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Maplewood Addition properties from R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) to R- 4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-05-oo6, CPA 2005- M-l, Area K3. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211212005. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by revising land uses in the RC (Resource Conservation) and R-l (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zones. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12112/2005. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, Chapter 4-3, Environmental Regulations and Special Districts, and Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by changing the provisions for residential uses within the CA (Commercial Arterial) zone. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211212005. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and advanced for second and final reading: An ordinance was read amending and reestablishing the property tax levy for the year 2006 for both general purposes and for voter approved bond issues. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Following second and final reading of the above ordinance, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-1-170 and 4-1-180 of Chapter 1, Public Works Fees, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by changing the fee schedules. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Section 4-9-060 of Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by allowing application for a fee in lieu of street improvements. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Tom Meagher, being firs1 duly sworn on oath that he is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily n~wspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice,a Public Notice was published on December 16, 2005. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of ~446.00. ~ ~\\\""·"IIII. ~"-n~ L 8 "'''' ~O.v _ :,<J;;' ~ ~ r:~OT/t"'~~ ~ ~ ~~ ... ~O~ Tom Meagher = \ 7.. ': Legal Advertising Represenullive, King County J~ fI412~~ i = Subscnbed and sworn to me eus 19th day ofDece~\7005. Oo9! ~ E ~r~,~~ ~ ...... ~ "'Q~ ~ . ----~ ~b::--=-~ ~ : ~ ~~~~ ~ 1111'"U.""t Jody L. on Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Auburn, Washington PO Number: Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY RENTON CITY COUNCIL Following is a summary of ordi- nances adopted by the Renton City Council on December 12, 2005: ORDINANCE NO. 5174 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, providing for the 2005 year end budget amendments in the total amount of $4,025,395. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5175 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, annexing to the City of Renton approximately 10.6 acres located north of the centerline of SE 132nd St. and east of the eastern edge of the 138th Ave. SE right-of-way. (Lindberg Annexation; File No. A-04- 008). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5176 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, establishing the zoning classification of approximately 9.72 acres located east of 138th Ave. SE and north of SE 132nd St. annexed within the City of Renton from R-4 (Urban Residential, 4 DU per acre, King County zoning) to R-8 (Residen- tial 8 DUlAC; eight dwelling units per acre) (Lindberg Annexation; File No. A-04-008). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5177 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, amending Section 4-1- 150, Fire Prevention Fees, of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances for the City of Renton, Washington" by amending the Fire Prevention fees. Effective: 11112006 ORDINANCE NO. 5178 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, amending Chapter 1, Fee Schedule, of Title V, Finance and Busi- ness Regulations, of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordi- nances of the City of Renton, Wash- ington" by increasing certain Golf Course Greens fees. Effective: 41112006 ORDINANCE NO. 5179 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, amending sections 8-2- 2.G and 8-2-3.E.1 of Chapter 2, Storm and Surface Water Drainage; Sections 8-4-24 and 8-4-31 of Chapter 4, Water; and Section 8-5-15 of Chapter 5, Sew- ers, of Title VIII <Health and Sani- tation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington by increasing fees. Effective: 11112006 ORDINANCE NO. 5180 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington adopting the 2006 annual budget for the year 2006 in the total balanced amount of $172,019,527. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5181 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, adopting the 2005 amendments to the City's 2004 Com- prehensive Plan, Maps and Data in conjunction therewith. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5182 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning clas- sification of certain properties within the City of Renton (Griffin Home and vicinity, approximately 6.8 acres located along Lake Washington Blvd and N. 26th St.) from Residential 1 DUlAC (R-1) zoning to Residential 4 DUlAC (R-4) zoning, File No. LUA- 05-006 (CPA 2005-M-1, Area B). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5183 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning clas- sification of the Southport Devel- opment (approximately 17 acres located south of Lake Washington) within the City of Renton from Com- mercial Office Residential (COR) zon- ing to Urban-Center-North 2 (UC-N2) File No. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M-07 Southport). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5184 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning clas- sification of approximately 5.4 acres located along Jones Ave. within the City of Renton (Jones Avenue prop- erties) from Residential 8 DUlAC (R- 8) zoning to Resource Conservation (RC), File No. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005- M-1, Area El). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5185 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning clas- sification of certain properties in a native growth protection easement as part of the Brookridge plat within the City of Renton (Monterey Court prop- erties) from Residential 4 DUlAC (R- 4) zoning to Residential 1 DUlAC (R- 1), File No. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M- 1, Area E2). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5186 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning clas- sification of certain properties with the City of Renton (NE 28th Street and Edmonds Avenue properties) from Residential 8 DUlAC (R-8) zon- ing to Residential 1 DUlAC (R-1), File No. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M-1, Area E3). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5187 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning clas- sification of certain properties within the City of Renton (Maplewood Glen and vicinity) from Residential 8 DUI AC (R-8) zoning to Residential 4 DUI AC (R-4), File No. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M-1, Area L2). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5188 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning clas- sification of certain properties within the City of Renton (Panther Creek Wetland) from Residential 8 DUlAC (R-8) zoning to Residential 1 DUlAC (R-1), File No. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005- t.,...v,4-~"~>t'(J{p M-1, Area Pl. The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212U2005 ORDINANCE NO. 5189 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning clas- sification of certain properties within the City of Renton (Maplewood Addi- tion) from Residential 8 DUlAC (R-8) zoning to Residential 4 DUlAC (&-4), File No. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M-1, Area K3). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5190 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Stan- dards of Title IV (Development Regu- lations) of Ordinance No. 4260 enti- tled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" revis- ing land uses in the Resource Conser- vation (RC) and Residential-1 DUlAC (R-1) zones. Effective: 1212112005 ORDINANCE NO. 5191 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Stan- dards, Chapter 4-3, Environmental Regulations and Special Districts, and Chapter 4-4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordi- nance No. 4260 entitled "Code of Gen- eral Ordinances ofthe City of Renton, Washington" by changing the pro- visions for residential uses within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. Effective: 1212112005 Complete text of these ordinances is available at Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way; and posted at the Renton Public Libraries, 100 Mill Ave- nue South and 2902 NE 12th Street. Upon request to the City Clerk's office, (425) 430-6510, copies will also be mailed for a fee. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published in the King County Journal December 16,2005. #848261 , i CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5189 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (MAPLEWOOD ADDITION) FROM RESIDENTIAL 8 DUlAC (R-8) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 4 DUlAC (R-4), FILE NO. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005- M-l, AREA K3). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential 8 dulac; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been h~ld thereon on or about October 5, 2005, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION!. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 4 dulac as hereinbelow specified. The EDNSP ORDINANCE NO. 5189 Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (The portion of the Maplewood Addition within City Limits). SECTIONll. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th dayof December ,2005. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th dayof December ,2005. ~~-uJ~~ Kathy K er-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: of~20?~ Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/16/2005 (summary) ORD.1234:11l21105:ma 2 , '\ , ORDINANCE NO. 5189 EXHIBIT A MAPLEWOOD ADDmON REZONE R-8 TO R-4 LUA 05-006, CPAlOO5-M-l, AREA K3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The plat ofBrodell's Maple Garden Homes, as recorded in Volume 77 of Plats, Page 33, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT roads; TOGETHER WITH the plat of Paull's Maplewood Addition, as recorded in Volume 53 of Plats, Page 77, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT roads; All situate in the east half (112) of Section 21 and the west half(1I2) of Section 22, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. f ~I o z ~ u z < Z H A p::: o Exhibit B Maplewood Addition Rezone from R-8 to R-4 LUA05-006, CPA 2005-M-1, Area K3 e Economic Development, NeighborlJoods & Sll'lltegic Planning + AlIa + Alelt Pietsch, Admin istrator ~~1. G. Del Roaario "---' 16 Novembcr 200S VJ o 300 600 I I I CITY OF RENTON, W ASIDNGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5188 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE WNING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (PANTHER CREEK WETLAND) FROM RESIDENTIAL 8 DUlAC (R-8) WNING TO RESIDENTIAL 1 DUlAC (R-l), FaE NO. LUA-O~06 (CPA 2005-M-l, AREA P). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title N (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential 8 dulac; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about October 5, 2005, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential I dulac as hereinbelow specified. The EDNSP Administrator is ORDINANCE NO. 5188 hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Acreage along the Panther Creek Wetland). SECTIONll. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis 12th dayof December 2005. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12 th day of December 2005. Approved as to form: of~~"---- Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/16/2005 (s umma r y ) ORD.1232:11l21105:ma 2 ORDINANCE NO. 5188 EXHIBIT A PANTHER CREEK WETLAND REZONE R-8 TO R-l LUA 05-006, CPA 2005-M-I, AREA P LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of the east half(1/2) of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly of the north line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 30, easterly of the easterly right-of-way margin ofSR 167 (primary State Highway No.5), northerly of the north line of the Valley Medical Center Binding Site Plan, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 9311240441, and westerly of the following described line: Beginning said line at the southeast comer of Lot 4 of the City of Renton Short Plat No. 77-113, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 7808151009, said comer also being a point on the north line of said Valley Medical Center Binding Site Plan; Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 4, a distance of 421.49 feet, to the northwest comer of said Lot 4; Thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 4, to the southwest comer of the plat of Mance Addition, as recorded in Volume 68 of Plats, Page 21, records of King County, Washington; Thence northerly, easterly and northerly along the west line of said plat, to the most northerly northwest comer of said plat, said northwest comer also being a point on the south line of the plat of Ziegenfuss Addition, as recorded under Volume 93 of Plats, Page 18, records of King County; Thence westerly along said south line, to the southwest comer of said plat; Thence northerly along the west line of said plat, to the northwest comer thereof; Thence northeasterly to the southwest comer of a property described as the south 534.25 feet of that portion of the north half(ln) of the southeast quartecofsaid Section 30, lying west of County Road #80 (Talbot Road S), excepting the west 1381.86 feet thereof and the south 224 feet thereof; Thence northerly, along the west line of said property and the northerly extension of said west line, to a point on the south line of the north half(ln) of the north half(ln) of said southeast quarter, said point being a distance of 447.57 feet westerly of the westerly right-of-way margin of Talbot Road S (County Road #80); Thence northwesterly to a point on the south line of the north half (In) of the north half(ln) of the north half (1/2) of said Section 30, said point being a distance of398.03 feet westerly of the westerly right-of-way margin of Talbot Road S (County Road #80), said point also being a point on the south line of Lot 4 1 ORDINANCE NO. 5188 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 78-197, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 7908239009; Thence easterly along said south line, to an intersection with the southerly extension of the northern most easterly line of said Lot 4; Thence northwesterly along said southerly extension and said easterly line of said Lot 4, to a point on the north line of the northwest quarter of said southeast quarter, said point also being 224.09 feet westerly of the westerly right-of-way margin of Talbot Road S (County Road #80); Thence easterly along said north line, to the southwest comer of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 90-141, recorded under King County Rec. No. 9703259002, in the northeast quarter of said Section 30; Thence northerly along the west line of said short plat and it northerly extension, to the north line of the south three-quarters of the south half of the southwest quarter of said northeast quarter; Thence westerly along said north line, to a point 140.00 feet westerly of the westerly right-of-way margin of Talbot Road S (County Road #80); Thence northwesterly, to a point on the south line of the north half (112) of the southwest quarter of said northeast quarter, said point being 162.00 feet westerly of the westerly right-of-way margin of Talbot Road S (County Road #80); Thence westerly along said south line, to the west line of the east 400 feet of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence northerly along said west line, to the north line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 30 and the tenninus of the herein described line. 2 sw 27th St SW 2~th ~ Sw B4th St SW 41st S Exhibit B ~ 0:::: >... Q) g w (5 :> w UKVINANCE NO. 5188 R .. t Panther Creek Wetlands Rezone from R-8 to R-1 LUA05-006, CPA 2005-M-1, Area P e Economic DeveIOl'mc:nl. ~eighborllOods & SIJ3lcgic Planning • ~). Alex POC'lsch. Admllllstralor ,~ G. Del Rosario I (, November ~005 o I 600 J 1200 1 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5187 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA nON OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (MAPLEWOOD GLEN AND VICINITY) FROM RESIDENTIAL 8 DUlAC (R-8) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 4 DUlAC (R-4), FILE NO. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M-I, AREA L2). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title N (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential 8 dulac; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about October 5, 2005, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 4 dulac as hereinbelow specified. The EDNSP ORDINANCE NO. 5187 Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits "A'; and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Maplewood Glen and Vicinity). SECTIONll. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th dayof December ,2005. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th dayof December ,2005. Approved as to form: of ~7l0!,---- Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/16/2005 (summary) ORD.1233: 11121105:ma 2 ORDINANCE NO. 5187 EXHIBIT A MAPLEWOOD GLEN AND VICINITY REZONE R-8 TO R-4 LUA 05-006, CPA 2005-M-l, AREA L2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The plat of Maplewood Division 1, as recorded in Volume 39 of Plats, Page 24, records of King County, Washington, and the plat of Maplewood Division 2, as recorded in Volume 39 of Plats, Page 39, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT Lot A and Lot C of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-99-167- LLA, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 20000522900016; and EXCEPT that portion of Block 9 in said Maplewood Division 2, described as City of Renton Short Plat No. LUA-99-093-SHPL, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 20010105900006, records ofKjng County, Washington; and EXCEPT the southerly 120 feet of the westerly 88.25 feet, as measured along the southerly line and at right angles thereto, of Lot 9, said Block 9 of Maplewood Division 2; and EXCEPT Tracts A and B of said Maplewood Division 2 and that portion of Maplewood Park Place that attached to Tract A by Operation of Law per City of Renton Street Vacation Ordinance No. 4600; and EXCEPT that portion of Lot 9, Block 6 of said Maplewood Division 2, described as follows: Beginning at the most westerly comer of Lot 1, Block 6 of said plat; Thence S 61 0 09' 15" E along the southwesterly line of said lot, a distance of 50 feet; Thence S ogo 55' 00" W, a distance of 51 feet; Thence N 650 OS' 00" W, a distance of 40 feet, to a point on the west line of said Lot 9; Thence northerly along said west line of said Lot 9, a distance of 59.6 feet, to the point of beginning; EXCEPT roads and highways; TOGETHER WITH the plat of Cedar River Summer Homes Sites, as recorded in Volume 31 of Plats, Page 44, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT roads; All situate in Government Lots 4 and 6 and the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 16, and in Government Lots 1 and 5 of Section 21, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ...-'\ Exhibit B Maplewood Glen and Vicinity Rezone from R-8 to R-4 lUA05-006, CPA 2005-M-1, Area l2 e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning • ~). Alex Pietsch, Adminlalrator ~~/. 0. Del RoIario "--"' 16 NOYeIIIber 200S o 300 600 I I ! ..,.- C ::0:: t:: ~ :z > :z c: t<: :z C ~ • CITY OF RENTON, WASIllNGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5186 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA nON OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (NE 28TH STREET AND EDMONDS A VENUE PROPERTIES) FROM RESIDENTIAL 8 DUlAC (R-8) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 1 DUlAC (R-l), FILE NO. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M-I, AREA E3). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential 8 dulac; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about October 5, 2005, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASIllNGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 1 dulac as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhoods and ORDINANCE NO. 5186 Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Near NE 28th Street and Edmonds Avenue). SECTION ll. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th dayof December 2005. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12 th day of __ D_e,-c_e_m_b_e_r __ 2005. Approved as to form: of ~ 7}1A.J,--- Lawrence I. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/16/2005 (summary) ORD.1231: 11121105 :ma 2 .. , ORDINANCE NO. 5186 EXHlBHA NE 28TH STREET AND EDMONDS AVE PROPERTIES REZONE FROM R-8 TO R-l LUA 05-006, CPA 200S-M-l, AREA E3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions of the northwest quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., and the southeast quarter of Section 32 and the southwest quarter of Section 33, both in Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M, all in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast comer of said southeast quarter of Section 32; Thence northerly, along the east line of said Section 32, a distance of30 feet, to the northerly right-of-way margin ofNE 28th Street, said right-()f-way margin also being the southerly line of Tract 369, C. D. Hillmans Lake Washington Garden of Eden No.6, as recorded in Volume 11, Page 84, records of King County, Washington; Thence westerly along said southerly line of said Tract 369 and said northerly right-()f- way margin, a distance of 410 feet; Thence N 00" 51'40" E, to the north line of said Tract 369; Thence easterly along said north line, to a point 103.63' westerly of the east line of said Section 32; Thence southeasterly, along a zoning boundary line separating RC and R-8 zones, across portions of Sections 32 and 33 in said Township 24 and across a portion of Section 4 in said Township 23, to the point of intersection of the easterly boundary of the west 641.42 feet of said northwest quarter of said Section 4 and the northerly right-()f-way margin of NE 21th Street· , Thence westerly, northwesterly and westerly along said northerly right-()f-way margin to a point on the west line of said northwest quarter; Thence northerly along said west line to the northwest comer of said northwest quarter, said northwest comer also being the southeast comer of the southeast quarter of Section 32, and the point of beginning; EXCEPT that portion of said Tract 369 defined as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Tract 369, a distance of390 feet westerly of the east line of said Section 32; Thence westerly, along said south line, a distance of 80 feet; Thence N 00"51'40" E, a distance of 120 feet; Thence S 8~2'OO" E, a distance of64.59 feet; Thence S 38°09'49" E, a distance of24.41 feet; Thence S 00"51 '40" W, a distance of 100.88 feet, to the point of beginning. EXCEPT roads. UKViNANC~ NU. 51~6 Exhibit B NE 28th and Edmonds Properties Rezone from R-8 to R-1 LUA05-006, CPA 2005-M-1, Area E3 e Economic Development. Neighbomoods & Stmtegic Planning • ~ I. Alex Pietsch. Administrator ~.;.; G. Dcl R"""io -"" 16 No\'ember 1005 o I 300 J 600 I r ( CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5185 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE WNING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (MONTEREY COURT PROPERTIES) FROM RESIDENTIAL 4 DUlAC (R-4) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 1 DUlAC (R-I), FILE NO. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M-l, AREA E2). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential 4 dulac; and WHE~AS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about October 5, 2005, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASIDNGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 1 dulac as hereinbelow specified. The EDNSP Administrator is ORDINANCE NO. 51 58 hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (property in a native growth protection easement as part of the Brookridge Plat). SECTIONll. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12 t h day of Dec em b e r 2005. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis 12th dayof December 2005. -1('ah~,tJ~ Kathy Kooiker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: of~~,----- Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/16/2005 (summary) ORD.1230: 11121105:ma 2 I' I ORDINANCE NO. 5185 EXBIBITA MONTEREY COURT PROPERTIES REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-l LUA 05-006, CPA 2005-M-l, AREA E2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tracts D and E ofBrookridge, as recorded in Volume 210 of Plats, Pages 78-82, records of King County, Washington, said plat being situated in the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ORDINANCE NO. 5185 'I t---------i \ NE ~ Exh i bit B .;.:c..;.---II_-L Properties adjacent to Monterey Ct. Rezone from R-4 to R .. 1 LUA05-006, CPA 2005-M-1, Area E2 e Economic Development. NeighbOlboods & Strategic Planning .IR ) Alex Pietsch. AdminiSlrator ~ ~~ ~~~=~lO5 o I 200 J 400 I , CITY OF RENTON, WASIDNGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5184 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WfI'HIN THE CITY OF RENTON (JONES AVENUE PROPERTIES) FROM RESIDENTIAL 8 DUlAC (R-8) ZONING TO RESQURCE CONSERVATION (RC), FILE NO. LUA- 05-006 (CPA 2005-M-l, AREA El). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential 8 dulac; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This· matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about October 5, 2005, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City'S Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF RENTON, W ASIDNGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SE(;TIONI. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Resource Conservation (RC) as hereinbelow specified. The EDNSP ORDINANCE NO. 5184 Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits "A" and "8" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Property consisting of approximately 5.4 acres located along Jones Avenue). SECTIONll. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 1 2 t h day of Dec em be r 2005. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th dayof December 2005. ~~-W~ Kathy Keo ker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/16/2005 (s umma r y ) ORD.1229: 11121105:ma 2 , .~ ORDINANCE NO. 5184 EXHIBIT A JONES A VENUE PROPERTIES REZONE FROM R-8 TO RC LUA 05-006, CPA 2005-M-l, AREA El LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 108 through Lot 119, inclusive, ofC.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Div. No.2, as recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 64, records of King County, Washington, said plat being situated in the northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 ~ W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH that portion of road (N 38th Street) that attached by Operation of Law per City of Renton Ordinance No. 1941; EXCEPT those portions lying westerly of the easterly right-of-way margin ofSR 405 (State Highway No. I, FLY SEC STATE HWY NO.2-A); and EXCEPT roads .--,.........--.o-~_-..--_-----.-------:'~'--------.----=;::=:=-----,-----,------Q)--r------" ~. I > d V o -f--------.--I 1 en (J.) C ~ CY' <C / ~ ( ) r----__ _ - L /'" =-36 th ( II Exhibit B r I Properties on Jones Rd. Rezone from R-8 to RC LUA05-006, CPA 2005-M-1, Area E1 e Economic Development. Ncighborhood~ & Slrdlcgic Planning •• }+ AJc:\ Pietsch. Adminislrnlor ~ ~~ ~~'~:'~'~MI5 o : I 200 : 400 I - - CITY OF RENTON, WASlllNGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5183 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE WNING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL (COR) WNING TO URBAN CENTER-NORTH 2 (UC-N2) FILE NO. LUA-OS-006, (CPA 2005-M-07 SOUTHPORT). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title N (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Commercial Office Residential (COR); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about October 5, 2005, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, W ASInNGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTIONl The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Urban Center-North 2 (UC-N2) as hereinbelow specified. The -ORDINANCE NO. 5183 EDNSP Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Approximately 17 acres south of Lake Washington). SECfIONU. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 1 2 t h day of Dec em be r , 2005. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th dayof December ,2005. .f\~~-{)~ Kathy J( Iker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: cI' ~?W"--- Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/16/2005 (summary) ORD.1227:11l21105:ma 2 \, ORDINANCE NO. 5183 EXHIBiT A SOUTHPORT REZONE FROM COR TO UC-N2 LUA 05-005, CPA 2005-M-07 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1,2,3 and 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. LUA-99-134-SHPL, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20000131900006, records of King County, Washington; All situate in the south half (112) of the southwest quarter of Section 5, and the north half (112) of the northwest quarter of Section 8, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Exhibit B N 8th St. Southport Rezone from COR to UC-N2 LUA05-006, CPA 2005-M-7 e Economic Development. Neighbomoods & Slrnlegic Planning .:.. • Alex Pietsch. AdnUDlSlrator ~ G. Del Rosario 16 November 2005 o 500 1000 ~~ ~ __ I~~~l ,. r , CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5182 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSlFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (GRIFFIN HOME AND VICINITY) FROM RESIDENTIAL 1 DUlAC (R .. l) TO RESIDENTIAL 4 DUlAC (R-4) ZONING, FILE NO. LUA-05-006 (CPA 2005-M-l, AREA B). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential 1 dulac; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about October 5, 2005, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTIONl The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 4 dulac (R-4), as hereinbelow specified. The EDNSP ORDINANCE NO. 5182 Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits "An and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (property consisting of approximately 6.8 acres located along Lake Washington Boulevard and N. 26th Street). SECTIONll. lbis ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12 t h day of Dec em be r 2005. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis 12th dayof December 2005. Approved as to form: of~~~ Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/16/2005 (s umma r y ) ORD.I228: I1I21105:ma 2 , , ORDINANCE NO. 5182 EXHIBIT A GRIFFIN HOME AND VICINITY REZONE R-l TO R-4 LUA 05-006, CPA 2005-M-l, AREA B LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 29 of Eldon Acres, as recorded in Volume II of Plats, Page 86-A and 86-B, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT the easterly 30 feet thereof dedicated for road as recorded under King County Recording No. 8408209013; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Lot 30 of said plat lying southerly of the north 123.12 feet thereof, and lying easterly of the west 100 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH Lots 32 through 38, inclusive, of said plat; EXCEPT that portion of Lot 32 deeded for road per King County Recording No. 8811150481; TOGETHER WITH that portion of road (pelly Place N) that attaches by Operation of Law, per City of Renton Street Vacation Ordinance No. 4188; and TOGETHER WITH Lots 42 through 47, inclusive, of said plat; EXCEPT those portions for road (Lake Washington Blvd. N); All situate in Government Lot 1 and in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 North, W.M, in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ,- ~I 0 z ~ u z < Z H A ~ 0 " Exhibit B Griffin Home and Vicinity Rezone from R-1 to R-4 LUA05-006, CPA 200S-M-1, Area B e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning •• • Alex Piettcb, Adminialrllror , G. Del Roaario '"--"' I. 16 November 2005 o 300 600 1 I 1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING / BUILDING / PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM Date: July 19, 2006 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: City Initiated Comp Plan Amendments -2005 LUA (file) Number: LUA-05-006, R, ECF Cross-References: AKA's: 2005 Comp Plan Amendments Project Manager: Rebecca Lind Acceptance Date: October 14, 2005 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: Various Contact: City of Renton PID Number: ERC Decision Date: November 15, 2005 ERC Appeal Date: December 5, 2005 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Comp Plan Amendments Adopted Date: December 12, 2005 Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: 2005 Comp Plan Map & Text Amendments (City initiated), including changes to the Urban Growth Boundary, refinement of Res Low Density mapping, review of Renton's potential annexation area, evaluation of airport compatible zoning, Location: Comments: , I STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Tom Meagher, being first duly sworn on oath that he is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on November 21,2005. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum 4k \\\\UHII;II ,\\;'{ L B I,; $" ~ "'~"'~;"; ~ .. ,P7~OT~~"" 0 ~ Tom Meagher ~ I \'i-~ Legal Advertising Representative, King County Jourj.b:ll 04/;XP. } E Subscribed and sworn to me this 22nd day of NOVeml:tJr~05. 8/2009 ,I tie E ~ ···.~LlC •• " ;:: ~ ~'~ .... .. . ( . ~" Op·· ..... ~·~ ~~ . 'I, WAS\1-\.:~," ", ...... ,,\\: Jody L. Barton Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Auburn, Washington PO Number: Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (& PUBLIC HEARING) RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following pro- ject under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments LUA05-006, R, ECF Location: City-wide. #2005-M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Com- prehensive Plan and citywide zon- ing. Redesignation of the Maple- wood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. #2005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane in unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Wash- ington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. #2005-M-3, Amend the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area to include the West HilL #2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-designate land from Single Family Residential with R-S zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. #2005-M-7, Redesignation of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center. #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washing- ton State Department of Trans- portation remnant adjacent to 1- 405 from Commercial Office Resi- dential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation. #2005-T-1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. #2005-T-2, Review text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. #2005-T-3, Review narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agen- cies and programs. #2005-T-4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. 2005-T-5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 5, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writ- ing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9S055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Sec- tion 4-S-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Published in the King County Journal November 21, 2005. #848036 City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-006, R, ECF APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT TITLE: 2005 Cit Initiated Comp Plan Amendments PLAN REVIEW: SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: 77373 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005 CPA's initiated by the City and includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05-005). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services f Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet n(t/l B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infom needed to properly assess this proposal. /2 -8'''-0 ~ Signature of Director or Authorized Repres tative Date CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 1 th day of November, 2005, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): ~~ of (J .... _ ...... STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ~~~I~~~~l signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and volum purposes mentioned in the instrument. oated:_1-fl (_v-+4_0 _( __ _ Notary Public in and for the Sate of Washington Notary (print): __ ~C_~::...rv~~::t.........:..F_--=-IJ~t=--r!e ______ _ My appointment expires: 31 {If/ob Project Name: 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments Project Number: LUA05-006, R, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing PARTIES OF RECORD CITY INITIATED COMP PLAN AMEND LUA05-006, CPA Dan Peck 6101 NE 4th Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Richard Underwood 2314 NE 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Patricia Patricelli 9507 S 198th Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Joanne Scholen 19418 Talbot Road S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Scott Duncan 3316 SE 6th Street Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) Marlin & Barbara Gilbert 3624 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) Mark Gardner & Christie Mueller 6841 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Brian Casserly 420 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Dave C. Hardy 19235 108th Avenue SE ste: #206 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Updated: 11/21/05 Cindy Merritt 14408 SE 100th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Pat Bader 19249 99th Place S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Shelly Jackson 3915 108th Avenue NE ste: #B- 304 Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Robert Nielsen 3209 SE 6th Street Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) Bill Williamson Williamson Law Office 701 5th Avenue ste: #5500 Seattle, WA 98104 (party of record) Robert & Gilla Bachellerie 6417 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Pyuong Su Bonner PO Box 853 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) James Dawson 58 Logan Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Martin & Anne Healy 314 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Dawn Courier 19815 98th Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Marilyn Whitney 969 Shelton Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Alan & Marilyn Johnson 13505 Maple Valley Hwy Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) JJ Stanker 5912 92nd Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040-5037 (party of record) Yolanda Lepley 4457 Tokul Road SE Snoqualmie, WA 98065 (party of record) Betty & Lee Dellinger 6425 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Terri Bowen 315 Taylor Avenue NW Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Ron Fouty 2130 Gingko Street SE Auburn, WA 98092 (party of record) Shirley Hunter 215 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (Page 1 of 3) Jennifer Jorgenson 205 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Pamela Nel 563 Bremerton Place NE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Thomas Rivily 17035 300th Avenue NE Duvall, WA 98019 (party of record) Richard Storwick PO Box 692 Anacortes, WA 98221 (party of record) Jennifer Zug 117 Burnett Place S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Jim Hanson Hanson Consulting 17446 Mallard Cove Lane Mt. Vernon, WA 98274 tel: 360-422-5056 (contact) Ray Giometti 323 Pelly Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) PARTIES OF RECORD CITY INITIATED COMP PLAN AMEND LUA05-006, CPA Gloria & George Mehrens 316 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Marilyn Redmond 2914 108th Avenue E Edgewood, WA 98372 (party of record) Fred & Erna Sandoy 220 Shattuck Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Robert Stuth & Catherine Ploue- Smith 402 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Randy Matheson Community Relations -Renton School District 300 SW 7th Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) O.J. Harper 200 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 (owner / applicant) Greg & Sherre Piantanida 7011 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Ron & Betsy Munson 623 Cedar Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Glenn Reynolds 55 Logan Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Richard Stauff 13813 139th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Tom Tobacco 1701 Lake Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Ryan Zulauf City of Renton -Airport , (party of record) Cherie Lang 6615 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) David & Sally McCray 6815 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Gregg Smith & Kelly Williams 6811 Ripley Lane Olaf & Nancy Manz 7009 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Susan Lang 7023 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Gerald Barber 7023 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 11/21/05 Pierre & Christi Thiry 6619 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Harold Bruce 6631 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 2 of 3) , . PARTIES OF RECORD CITY INITIATED COMP PLAN AMEND LUA05-006, CPA Priscilla, Richard & Gregory Elfers 6823 Ripley Lane Marjorie Grundhaus 7001 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) George & Nancy Johnston 6831 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) John Houtz 6809 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Jeff Pearce 6421 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Tommy Jones 6603 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 11/21/05 Craig Magnusson 6433 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Robert & Dita Dye 7029 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Scott Gulrek 6625 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) John & Nancy Lorge 6437 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Louis & Connie Williams 7005 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Vicente & Jennifer Farinas 6611 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 3 of 3) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-006, R, ECF LOCATION: City-wide DESCRIPTION: #2005-M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redeslgnatlon of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. Low-denslty residential areas are subject to increased scrutiny upon review under the Growth Management Act. This application provides an evaluation of all lands currently designated at densities below four du/acre for compliance with urban bright-line standard set by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. It also provides a review of limited areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area (PM) now designated Single Family residential and zoned'R-8 that exhibit environmental constraints and/or patterns of development that meet criteria for the Residential Low Density designations. The application also Involves an examination of the consistency of allowed uses and development standards of the Resource Conservation zoning, R-1, and R.-4 implementing zoning with the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan policies. 12005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane In unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the Inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The proposal Is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include, as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area, 1) an area approximately 0.5 mile In length and 3.83 acres in size, located at the north end of Ripley Lane (zoned Residential 6 In King County), and 2) certain shorelands located beyond the corporate limit of Renton, between the Inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington. #2005-M-7, Rede8/gneatlon of the Southport from Commercial OffIce Reeldentlal Land Use to Urbln Center. The area for proposed redesignation was designated COR (Commercial/Office/Residential) In 1999 In support of the Southport development. In many ways, the Southport development typifies the ~bJectives of the Urban Center. It a!so provides a good example of the conversion of industrial land into mixed use, an Important theme In the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North (UC-N). For these reasons, inclusion of Southport in Renton's Urban Center is desired. Changing the land use designation from COR to UC-N requires concurrent re-zonlng to UC-N2. #2005-M~9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1405 fro,:" Commercial Office Residential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation. ThiS application reviews a parcel of WSDOT owned land adjacent to 1-405 and th~ City owned. NAECO ~ite for re-des!gnation from Commercial Office Residential to Residential Low Density. The parcel Includes portions of unimproved right-of-way and portions of the Cedar River. The zoning is Resource Conservation. This application is a housekeeping amendment needed to implement consistency between the ComprehensIve Plan and zoning. #2005-T-1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. This application involves amendments and corrections to the Comprehensive Plan introductory text, incorporating forecast growth and target data and additional narrative. #2005-T .. 2 Review text In the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. Although staff updated the goals and 'policies in the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive ~Ian for ~e 200~ update, ~he Info.r~ation pertaining to private utility purveyors was not updated. It is necessary to review the Information on pnvate utility purveyors In the Comprehensive Plan and recommend areas for amendment. '2005-T-3, Review narrative In the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agencies and programs. Staff updated the Comprehensive Plan Glossary during the 2004 update, removing definitions of terms no longer used in the Plan and adding new terms. There are a few terms used in the Comprehensive Plan that do not have a glossary entry. Adding a handful of definitions will assist the reader in understanding the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ~005-T-4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. Staff has been working on a code amendment to allow limited types of residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. This code amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and pOlicies for Commercial Corridors. However. in the process of producing the necessary code changes, it became appa~ent that corrections needed to be made to the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the terminology used to refer to the speCific "Business Districr portions of the Commercial Corridor. In addition to a change In nomenclature, the associated maps defining the Business Districts need to be corrected. These corrections should simplify the application of the development regulations in the Business Districts, which in turn ensures greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. '2005-T -5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Additional narrative is added to the Comprehensive ptan Vision to reflect changes made in the 2005-2006 City of Renton adopted BUSiness Plan. #200S-M-3, Amend the City of Renton'. Potential Annexation Area to Include the West Hili. The proposal is 10 THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT amend !he Comprehensive Plan Map to Include Ihe Wesl Hill Area as e part of !he Cily of Renton's Polential Annexation THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE Area. This will also include adopting Comprehensive Plan Land Use DeSignations for the area. ENVIRONMENT. #2005-M~5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during Its 2004 Comprehensive Plln Update. As part of the 2004 King County Plan update the County added the six- acre Renton Christian Center, located at SE 184111 5t. to the Renton Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and amended the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate this change. The six-acre site is located in the Lake Desire area, and Is also included within the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. These amendments were ratified by the Renton City Council but action to amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan is stm required for consistency with the Countywide Planning Policies. #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-deslgnate lind from Single Family Residential with R-8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. A request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Residential Single Family (RS) to Corridor Commercial in the Tobin neighborhood was submitted by a property owner of two abutting parcels located at 125 and 201 South Tobin Street. The applicant has also requested a corresponding zoning change from Residential 8 (R-e) to Commercial Arterial (CA). In addition, the City of Renton initiated a larger review of zoning in the Tobin neighborhood to determine whether the rezoning request and existing land use designations are consistent with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan adopted in 2004. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 5, 2005. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk'. Office, (425) 430-6510, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Pl •••• Includ. the proj.ct NUMBER when calling for proper fn. Identification. CERTIFICATION I, ~ ~lIl"d.... , hereby certify that ~ copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: Ie/It/Os. SIGNED: qR.~ v ,Jt. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-006, R, ECF LOCATION: City-wide DESCRIPTION: #2005-M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redesignation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. Low-density residential areas are subject to increased scrutiny upon review under the Growth Management Act. This application provides an evaluation of all lands currently designated at densities below four du/acre for compliance with urban bright-line standard set by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. It also provides a review of limited areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area (PM) now designated Single Family residential and zoned R-8 that exhibit environmental constraints and/or patterns of development that meet criteria for the Residential Low Density designations. The application also involves an examination of the consistency of allowed uses and development standards of the Resource Conservation zoning, R-1, and R-4 implementing zoning with the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan policies. #2005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane in unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include, as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area, 1) an area approximately 0.5 mile in length and 3.83 acres in size, located at the north end of Ripley Lane (zoned Residential 6 in King County), and 2) certain shorelands located beyond the corporate limit of Renton, between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington. #2005-M-3, Amend the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area to include the West Hill. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to include the West Hill Area as a part of the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. This will also include adopting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations for the area. #2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. As part of the 2004 King County Plan update the County added the six- acre Renton Christian Center, located at SE 184th St. to the Renton Potential Annexation Area (PM), and amended the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate this change. The six-acre site is located in the Lake Desire area, and is also included within the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. These amendments were ratified by the Renton City Council but action to amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan is still required for consistency with the Countywide Planning Policies. #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-designate land from Single Family Residential with R-8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. A request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Residential Single Family (RS) to Corridor Commercial in the Tobin neighborhood was submitted by a property owner of two abutting parcels located at 125 and 201 South Tobin Street. The applicant has also requested a corresponding zoning change from Residential 8 (R-8) to Commercial Arterial (CA). In addition, the City of Renton initiated a larger review of zoning in the Tobin neighborhood to determine whether the rezoning request and existing land use designations are consistent with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan adopted in 2004. #2005-M-7, Redesigneation of ule Southport from Commercial Office RAential Land Use to Urban Center. The area for proposed redesignation was designated COR (Commercial/Office/Residential) in 1999 in support of the Southport development. In many ways, the Southport development typifies the objectives of the Urban Center. It also provides a good example of the conversion of industrial land into mixed use, an important theme in the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North (UC-N). For these reasons, inclusion of Southport in Renton's Urban Center is desired. Changing the land use designation from COR to UC-N requires concurrent re-zoning to UC-N2. #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1-405 from Commercial Office Residential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation. This application reviews a parcel of WSDOT owned land adjacent to 1-405 and the City owned NAECO site for re-designation from Commercial Office Residential to Residential Low Density. The parcel includes portions of unimproved right-of-way and portions of the Cedar River. The zoning is Resource Conservation. This application is a housekeeping amendment needed to implement consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. #2005-T-1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. This application involves amendments and corrections to the Comprehensive Plan introductory text, incorporating forecast growth and target data and additional narrative. #2005-T-2, Review text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. Although staff updated the goals and policies in the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the 2004 update, the information pertaining to private utility purveyors was not updated. It is necessary to review the information on private utility purveyors in the Comprehensive Plan and recommend areas for amendment. #2005-T-3, Review narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agencies and programs. Staff updated the Comprehensive Plan Glossary during the 2004 update, removing definitions of terms no longer used in the Plan and adding new terms. There are a few terms used in the Comprehensive Plan that do not have a glossary entry. Adding a handful of definitions will assist the reader in understanding the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T -4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. Staff has been working on a code amendment to allow limited types of residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. This code amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Commercial Corridors. However, in the process of producing the necessary code changes, it became apparent that corrections needed to be made to the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the terminology used to refer to the specific "Business District" portions of the Commercial Corridor. In addition to a change in nomenclature, the associated maps defining the Business Districts need to be corrected. These corrections should simplify the application of the development regulations in the Business Districts, which in turn ensures greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T-5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Additional narrative is added to the Comprehensive Plan Vision to reflect changes made in the 2005-2006 City of Renton adopted Business Plan. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 5, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CITY F RENTON ~R Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 17, 2005 Rebecca Lind City of Renton EDNSP 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Dear Ms. Lind: 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments LUA-05-006, R, ECF This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on November 15, 2005, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non- Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 5, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6578. For the Environmental Review Committee, Erika Conkling Associate Planner cc: Parties of Record --~---------lO-5-5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y--R-e-n-to-n-,W--as-h-in-g-to-n-9-8-0-55-------------~ * This paper rontains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor November 17, 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 CITY. RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 15, 2005: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Pan Amendments LUA05-006, R, ECF CitY-Wide #2005-M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redesignation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. #2005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane in unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. #2005-M-3, Amend the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area to include the West Hill. #2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-designate land from Single Family Residential with R-8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. #2005-M-7, Redesignation of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center. #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1-405 from Commercial Office Residential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation. #2005-T-1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. #2005-T -2, Review text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. #2005-T-3, Review narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and agencies and programs. R -------------1o-5-5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y~W~a-y---R-en-to-n-,~W-a~sh~in-g-to-n--98-0-5-5-------------~ ~ 1r() ~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE #2005-T -4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. 2005-T -5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 5, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6578. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~tttUt17J Rebecca Lind Principal Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural ResourceS WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe '(Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Reso\.lrces Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic PreseNation Enclosure It CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA05-006, R, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: • #2005-M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redesignation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. • #2005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane in unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. • #2005-M-3, Amend the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area to include the West Hill. • #2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. • #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-designate land from Single Family Residential with R-8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. • #2005-M-7, Redesignation of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center. • #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1-405 from Commercial Office Residential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation. • #2005-T-1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. • #2005-T -2, Review text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. • #2005-T-3, Review narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agencies and programs. • #2005-T-4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. • 2005-T-5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: City-wide City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Page 1 of2 Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 5, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: November 21, 2005 DATE OF DECISION: November 15, 2005 SIGNATURES: Ii(f'i /0) ll'MWlWWt~ ,,*+--c--t--\;~"--'-::'':-'':-:::-:::-....--:r~~::-::-:;:-:::-::---~--Date Alex Pietsch, Administrator EDNSP Page 2 of2 STAFF REPORT A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE Project Name Applicant File Number Project Manaaer Project Description City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE November 15, 2005 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments City of Renton LUA 05-006, ECF, R Rebecca Lind #2005-M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redesignation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. Low-density residential areas are subject to increased scrutiny upon review under the Growth Management Act. This application provides an evaluation of all lands currently deSignated at densities below four du/acre for compliance with urban bright-line standard set by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. It also provides a review of limited areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area (PM) now designated Single Family residential and zoned R-8 that exhibit environmental constraints and/or patterns of development that meet criteria for the Residential Low Density designations. The application also involves an examination of the consistency of allowed uses and development standards of the Resource Conservation zoning, R-1, and R-4 implementing zoning with the Residential Low DenSity Comprehensive Plan policies. See maps 1-5. #2005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane in unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include, as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area, 1) an area approximately 0.5 mile in length and 3.83 acres in size, located at the north end of Ripley Lane (zoned Residential 6 in King County), and 2) certain shorelands located beyond the corporate limit of Renton, between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington. See maps 6-8 #2005-M-3, Amend the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area to include the West Hill. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to include the West Hill Area as a part of the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. This will also include adopting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations for the area. See map 9. #2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. As part of the 2004 King County Plan update the County added the six-acre Renton Christian Center, located at SE 184th St. to the Renton Potential Annexation Area (PM), and amended the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate this change. ERC Report City Initiated CPAs.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department En vi. 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amen .. ",ents ~ntal Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-006 RZ, BeF REPORT AND DECISION OF NOVEMBER J 5, 2005 Page 2 0/4 Project Description (Continued) ERC Report City Initiated CPAs.doc The six-acre site is located in the Lake Desire area, and is also included within the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. These amendments were ratified by the Renton City Council but action to amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan is still required for consistency with the Countywide Planning Policies. See map 10. #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-designate land from Single Family Residential with R-8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use DeSignations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. A request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Residential Single Family (RS) to Corridor Commercial in the Tobin neighborhood was submitted by a property owner of two abutting parcels located at 125 and 201 South Tobin Street. The applicant has also requested a corresponding zoning change from Residential 8 (R-8) to Commercial Arterial (CA). In addition, the City of Renton initiated a larger review of zoning in the Tobin neighborhood to determine whether the rezoning request and existing land use designations are consistent with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan adopted in 2004. See map 11. #2005-M-7, Redesignation of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center. The area for proposed redesignation was deSignated COR (Commercial/Office/Residential) in 1999 in support of the Southport development. In many ways, the Southport development typifies the objectives of the Urban Center. It also provides a good example of the conversion of industrial land into mixed use, an important theme in the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North (UC-N). For these reasons, inclusion of Southport in Renton's Urban Center is desired. Changing the land use designation from COR to UC-N requires concurrent re-zoning to UC-N2. See map 12. #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1-405 from Commercial Office Residential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation. This application reviews a parcel of WSDOT owned land adjacent to 1-405 and the City owned NAECO site for re-designation from Commercial Office Residential to Residential Low DenSity. The parcel includes portions of unimproved right-of-way and portions of the Cedar River. The zoning is Resource Conservation. This application is a housekeeping amendment needed to implement consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. See map 13. #2005-T -1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. This application involves amendments and corrections to the Comprehensive Plan introductory text, incorporating forecast growth and target data and additional narrative. #2005-T-2, Review text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. Although staff updated the goals and policies in the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the 2004 update, the information pertaining to private utility purveyors was not updated. It is necessary to review the information on private utility purveyors in the Comprehensive Plan and recommend areas for amendment. #2005-T -3, Review narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agencies and programs. Staff updated the Comprehensive Plan Glossary during the 2004 update, removing definitions of terms no longer used in the Plan and adding new terms. There are a few terms used in the Comprehensive Plan that do not have a glossary entry. Adding a handful of definitions will assist the reader in understanding the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Renton EDNSP Department En vir ~ntal Review Committee Staff Report 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amen_ ... _nts LUA-OS-006 RZ, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF NOVEMBER 15. 2005 Page 3 0/4 Project Description (Continued) Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Site Area B. RECOMMENDATION #2005-T -4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. Staff has been working on a code amendment to allow limited types of residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. This code amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Commercial Corridors. However, in the process of producing the necessary code changes, it became apparent that corrections needed to be made to the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the terminology used to refer to the specific "Business Districf' portions of the Commercial Corridor. In addition to a change in nomenclature, the associated maps defining the Business Districts need to be corrected. These corrections should simplify the application of the development regulations in the Business Districts, which in turn ensures greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T-5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Additional narrative is added to the Comprehensive Plan Vision to reflect changes made in the 2005-2006 City of Renton adopted Business Plan. The amendments affect properties city-wide N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf N/A N/A Total Building Area gsf N/A Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: x DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None required for this non-project action. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da eal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following non-project environmental review addresses only those impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Airport Compatible Land Use Impacts: None identified for this non-project legislative action. The Southport area (Amendment 2005-M-7) and property requesting amendment near Tobin Street as part of the Harper Amendement (Amendment 2005-M-6) is within the Airport Influence Area. At the time of project specific applications, an Avigation Easement shall be required and a disclosure notice shall be placed on the property subject to Amendments 2005-M-6 and 2005-M-7 as a condition of any development permits. ERC Report City Initiated CPAs.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department 2005 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amen_ments REPORT AND DECISION OF NOVEMBER 15. 1005 Mitigation Measures: None for this non-project legislative action. 2. Archaelogical Resources Envi, mtal Review Committee Staff Report LUA-OS-006 RZ, ECF Page 4 of4 Impacts: None identified for this non-project legislative action. However, the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation did notify us that there is a high probability that the parcels subject to the proposed Amendment 2005-M-6 may have significant archaeological resources. There is a large archaeological resource site near Renton High School, and the proximity to this site indicates the likelihood of significant archaeological resources on the Harper parcels. Prior to any project related ground disturbance, a survey of the area shall be initiated by a professional archaeologist and the results shared with the cultural resources staff of any concerned tribes. Once such a survey is conducted, a copy of the report shall be sent to the State Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation and the affected tribes. Mitigation Measures: None for this non-project legislative action. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ~ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, December 5, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ERC Report City Initiated CPAs.doc RM-F MAP 1 Residential Low Density Lands Inventory Area B -Proposed Zoning Changes e~~ Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning +.. + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G. Del Rosario 21 October 2005 _ R-1 to R-4 o 300 600 I J 1 ~L----.J N E 40th ( ~sidential Low Density Lands Inventory a E -Proposed Zoning Changes and Comp Plan Amendment ~ Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning I j. Alex Pietsch, Administrator - ~ G. Del Rosario 15 August 200S _ R-4/R-8 to R-1 _ R-8toRC W RSFtoRLD 1000 2000 \1AP3 ~esidential Low Density Lands Inventory \rea K & L -Proposed Zoning Changes and Comprehensive Map Amendments e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning AM + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G. Del Rosario 15 August 2005 au _ R-8 to R-4 EZ2J RSF to RLD RC(P) o 500 1000 _lIIIBIIIlIIacJ Juoe nuN ,--_~n ~ ~ I en <V > -« --0 c ..--J J J -0 n::: >-. IL <V R-8 0 > LL.J SW 27th St 1M SW 2S th st " 1~ CA SW B4th St R-l0 1AP4 ~esidential Low Density Lands Inventory rea P _ Zoning Changes and Comp Plan Amendment 0 600 1200 .. R-8toR-1 ez1 RSF to RLO \!m "oat ;;}oo, " , ;;;uq __ ..-:ccc C~ _ --- ;) f. Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning am + Alex Pietseh, AdminislnltOr ~ G.OeI~ '. IS AUI!DSl200S R-l \lAPS ~esidential Low Density Lands Inventory Area V -Proposed Pre-Zoning and Comp Plan Amendment ~~ Economic Development. Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ~ + Alex Pietsch, Adminislnttor ~ _ ?; I?cl R~!,_ II1II R-4 RC(P 203rd St o 500 1000 poceccccceccct:!!! West Hill and PM Figure 1: Vicinity Map e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + ~ + Alex Pietsch, AdmiDisIrator-~ G. Del Rosario l§-NT 14 January 2005 o 6000 12000 ~ 11111 ,I I, ",too """, 1m;" em" '" c, Ii 1 : 72000 Renton Christian Center Figure 1: Vicinity Map ~'t Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ~ + Akx Pietscb. Administrator ~ O. Del Rosario ~ 11('f9 14 January 200S o 1000 2000 ~"i",,""'t!!II!!""'!~""""'''''''Oi ""'~ 1 : 12000 N 6th St. Airport Way South Tobin Street Residential :"l9ure 1 : Vicinity Map 1 : 7200 N~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1500 3000 Southport :igure 1: Vicinity Map ~ Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ~ .. Alex Pietsch, Administr.r\OC ~ G_ Del Rosario J4 JanwuY 2005 o ~'" "t; ;;PI! '" @" IO~ de § 1 : 18000 / " / /: ". !"" /// ., Existing Ia .•... ---CO._-. ... ----1--.. -'--. rJ2:' WSDOT -River (2003-M-03) Landuse & Zoning Map E)J :.+l Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning . &at + Alex PietlCh, Admlnlltntor ~ O. Del Rosario 3 JIIly 2003 ,. II' {.' :'V ::~ ;.' ~'::~ -.-.-.-... ------1---.--.--------~ --~-~.-~:cr:~~~_ mB CD·Center Downtown Bmal COR-Center Office Residential ~ EAC-Employment Area Commercial I!!!ll!!IB RR-Resldentlal Rural [=::J RS.ResldeMti;:!1 ~lnnl~ 1:",","" ~ I 1 : 2400 " City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public ~vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: f~ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-006, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 14,2005 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conkling PROJECT TITLE: 2005 City Initiated Comp Plan Amendments PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA (Qross): N/A 0.(',\ ~v: G.~ LOCATION: Ci!ywide WORK ORDER NO: 77373 \l"" <'. ~t.~~~\G"" SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005 CPA's initiated~~~t; and includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05-005). ,..~~~\ . A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS " Signature of Director or Authoriz Element of the Probable Environment Minor Impacts Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet / ) , I () j{2, )L~ ) i~J/c:i"J) ~ Date C,v Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary .'\. 10/26/2005 Amendment Comments, Surface Water Utility: We only have comments regarding amendments #1 and #6, which follow below. • Amendment #1: This amendment relates to the preservation of all environmentally sensitive natural areas that are currently zoned Resource Conservation (RC). These natural areas include many steep slopes in the basins of the Cedar River, May Creek and Honey Creek. Can we solely rely on development environmental regulations, protecting wetlands and creating stream buffers, or what administrative instrument will we use for protecting these areas if not RC zoning? If an area is not officially classified as having a wetland or a classified stream, environmental regulations may not even apply. The City does not own all RC zoned property outright, and the environmental benefits of stream buffers are limited in many cases. The May Creek canyon, for one, can be better protected from further environmental degradation by maintaining the RC zoning. The fish habitat value of May Creek is of concern, supporting salmonids among other things. Chinook salmon and beaver have been observed in the May Creek Greenway area. In some cases the RC zoning may be the only way to protect a natural area; therefore, we recommend to maintain the RC zoning designation. • Amendment #6: This amendment proposes to designate an area "Commercial Corridor" and rezone it "Commercial Arterial". The area is located at South Tobin Street, between Logan and Lake Ave S. While we do not object to this action, we do need to warn of a flooding complaint at Lake Ave South, reported to us repeatedly by Mr. Kwai-Shung Hsue at 140 Rainier Ave South. Mr. Hsue has filed a claim for damages, which has been denied. The case is still active. The area at Tobin Street contributes to the storm water runoff draining to the disputed storm drain system in Lake Ave South. In light of this fact, future development in the area to be rezoned "CA" should be held to the appropriate storm water control requirements, per the King County Surface Water Design Manual or City of Renton Standards that will be adopted at the time of project application. City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-006, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 14,2005 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: 2005 Cit Initiated Com Plan Amendments SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: 77373 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005 cPA'J3MIWm:ptwes~ and includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05-005). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air " Aesthetics Water V Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS J1etWe BeQ.-a-tcao£cl ~frte4 J/Q'la/uJf'j ~rJ1I2-rldrrrewfs #1 k~ .for sl'-jad<.-tJd..<2Y CC.ucrFL~. (}?7~ {h<-J-< k R~ C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Datei { • <t ( .... City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-006, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 14, 2005 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: 2005 Cit Initiated Com Plan Amendments SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: 77373 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005 CPA's initiated by the City and includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05-005). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation .x Environmental Health Public SeNices Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date / ;, c::.- " '''hy Plan? +HE--CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS INTRODUCTION It is the city govemment'sCity of Renton's primary responsibility to provide public services and facilities, develop policies, and adopt regulations that ensure the public health, safety, and welfare. The City government is also charged with guiding to guide the growth of a city that meets the needs of its peoplethe City so that quality of life of the community and opportunities for its citizens remain high. The guide for Renton's growth and development is the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act 7 GMl\: The City of Renton is revising its Comprehensive PI~n' compliance with the State of Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990. 'this legislation requires cities in rapidly growing areas to adopt Comprehensive Plans which that include land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, parks, human services, and transportation elements. All elements of the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with each other and with adopted state 'Nidestatewide and county widecountywide adopted planning goals. State- wide Statewide planning goals include provisions which that discourage urban sprawl, support affordable housing, m=ge-protection ef-the environment, and support provision of adequate urban services. In addition to these requirements, plans must be designed to accommodate 20 year20-year growth forecasts, determined by regional agencies and local jurisdictions, within wen definedwell-defined ~urban growth areas.: Regional or countywide planning has defined "urban centers" in locations where concentrations of people and uses may be logical. Cities and counties have worked cooperatively to identify where the provision of urban services may be appropriate (the urban growth areas), where urban-rural transition areas are located, and where low density population and low intensity uses will be situated. ~lhat is a The Comprehensive Plan-1- A-The comprehensiYe Comprehensive plan-Plan (Plan) is a broad statement of community goals, objectives, and policies that direct~ the orderly and coordinated physical development of a-the eity-~nto the future. A-Renton's comprehensive Comprehensive plan-Plan anticipates change and provides specific guidance for future legislative and administrative actions. It reflects is the results of citizen involvement, technical analysis, and the judgment creativity and experience of decision-makers in City government. The Vision, goals, objectives, policies, and maps of the plan-Plan provide the basis foundation for the adoption of regulations, programs, and services which that implement the plan£lan. The Planplan-serves as a guideliBe for designating land uses~ and infrastructure development, and as 'Nen as de'treloping community services. Incomorated in 1901, Renton is fifth oldest of King County's 39 cities and ranks fourth in the County in population size2• Renton is the fourteenth most populous city in the state3 and King County is the seventeenth most populous county in the nation2• The 2000 U.S. Census indicated that Renton had a population increase over the previous ten years of more than 20 percent. Only 1.5 percent ofthe increase is attributable to annexations. An increase in popUlation of almost 10 percent between 2000 and 2003 indicates that Renton has become one of the fastest growing cities in King County7. Renton is currently home to more than 43,97054,900 (1994 OFM) people1 and ranks fourth in popUlation in King County. In Renton, the largest age group ofthe popUlation are people of working age (18 to 64 years) at 34,016, five to seventeen year-olds number 7,392, those sixty-five and over number 5,123, and 3,521-are under five2• The median age is 35.7 years. The increase in the Renton School District No. 403 population between 1990 and 2000, 18 percent2, was slightly less than the citywide increase. Some annexations during that period included areas of the Issaquah School District (school district boundaries are typically unaffected by changing city boundaries). As the population of the City grows, it also becomes more diverse. The 2000 census indicated that only 68 percent of the population considers itself as white, a change from 83.5 percent from the previous census. Both the Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latino popUlations more than doubled during the 1990s and the number of Hispanic students in Renton schools increased by 379 percent. An additional 60,00063,600 people live in the unincorporated area surrounding the City in the Fairwood area (40,600), on West Hill/Bryn Mawr/Skyway (14,300), and on the East Plateau (8,700). It is a city with many 'Nell established neighborhoods as well as some new neighborhoods. Renton oontinues to be an important center of employment. The average wealth of Renton households is $226,3955• Approximately 8.5 percent of the working age population (18 to 64) lives below the poverty levee. The assessed value of Renton's land area (in thousands of dollars) is 6,272,6326• Over 45,OOOAlmost 52,000 people work for 2.312 employersS and at 1,517 businesses - Renton. v.r.ffieh eontirme to be major players in the loeal and regional eeonemy. These jobs, that are covered by Washington State unemployment insurance, are divided into sectors by type. Manufacturing, with almost 21,000 jobs remains Renton's largest sector. This indicates that The Boeing Company and PACCAR remain major players in the local and regional economy. The next most significant sector, with 11,413 employees, is the Finance, Insurance. Real Estate. and other Services sector. 2 Renton, historically, has been a small ~town and in many ways it still resembles a small tewncity. But several factors place it on the threshold of change: the continued vitality of Renton's industrial sector; regional population growth; and its location at the Adopted 11101104 Policy LU-406. Within the Puget Corridor, the "Business District" should and extend from the intersection ofPuget Drive and Benson Road S to the 1-405 ovemass. Policy LU-407. The policies of the Commercial Con'idor designation and the Puget Business District should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning. Policy LU-40B. Due to its location at a key entrance to the City from the south, the Puget Business District should include gateway features. Automall (map) NE Sunset Blvd Business District (revised map) NE 4th Business District (revised map) Rainier Business District (map) Puget Business District (map) COMMERCIAL/OFFICEIRESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The CommerciallOfficelResidential (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-V¥¥WWW: Development at CommerciallOfficelResidential 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-4OM07. Designate CommerciallOfficelResidential 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 ~suppo. rt, , ,landmar, k ,development., , . I '.'; / +~ ~ f,; C 4 "~3v,i r{' iliA ff., (;~ r C;~.,,;) " .. ,. I 7 '~()1 \..ets ,,~ N)c+ f dJt.j, 3 • Adopted 1 1101/04 ,.:1 . Policy LU-4()+40S/ Consistent with the locational criteria, CommerciallOfficelResidential 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. II . Policy LU~ Uses in CommerciallOfficelResidential designations should include mixed-use com' exes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, cultural facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and development facilities; and corporate headquarters. Policy LU-4094iOJ' Commercial uses such as retail and services should support the primary uses oftlte site and be architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. r Policy LU-4t-()41V. Commercial development, excluding big-box, may be a primary use in a CommerciciiiOfficelResidential 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. Policy LU-4H412. Individual properties may have a single use if they can be developed at the scale and intensity envisioned for the designation CommerciallOfficelResidential project, or if proposed as part of a phased development and mUlti-parcel proposal that includes a mix of uses. Policy LU-4H413. Structured parking should be required. Iflack 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-4lJ414. 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-4l4415. Private/public partnerships should be encouraged to provide infrastructure development, transportation facilities, public uses, and amenities. Policy LU-4lM16. Adjacent properties within a designated COR should be combined for master planning purposes and public review regardless of ownership. Policy LU-4M417. Master plans should coordinate the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of 4 City of nenton Department of Planning / Building / Public vvorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: R COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 14,2005 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: 2005 Cit Initiated Com Plan Amendments SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA nrr f 7 2005 LOCATION: Cit wide WORK ORDER NO: 77373 L J , 0~'~jC. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005 CPA's initiated by the City and includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05-005). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet (ojte~5 ~ ~1c:e::CQ f-+.&6 f..Jo G"OHHr:=J..If. ~~A.1=E6~ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Re"ton Department of Planning / Building / Public horks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-006, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 14,2005 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: 2005 Cit Initiated Com Plan Amendments SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: 77373 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005 CPA's initiated by the City and includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05-005). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment to,OOOFeet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS IU~ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ~'" ,whe", ,ddWon,};nioonatioo I~ needed 10 p""",rly =ess Ihl' p"""""l. In I ~ / ),.D( DaTfT ' City of nenton Department of Planning / Building / Public rrorks ~ E N V .. J RON MEN TAL & DE VEL 0 P MEN TAP P Lie A T ION REV lEW 5 H E E T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: I\)(COr+ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 . APPLICATION NO: LUA05-006, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 14, 2005 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conkling PROJECT TITLE: 2005 City Initiated Comp Plan Amendments PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: 77373 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005 CPA's initiated by the City and includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05-005). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water UghtIGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoriclCuftural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment r 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet 8. Date ~ I City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public horks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Cens COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-006, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 14,2005 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: 2005 Cit Initiated Com Plan Amendments SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: 77373 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005 CPA's initiated by the City and includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05-005). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water LiqhtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh re additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public horks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: f;' rc. APPLICATION NO: LUA05-006, R, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT TITLE: 2005 City Initiated Comp Plan Amendments SITE AREA: N/A COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 28, 2005 DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 1L1 " lr" .' PROJECT MANAGER: Erika ~nkrin9.-~ PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittric~ \ \ BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A ---- ...... " oel 1 I LVVJ LOCATION: Citywide WORK ORDER NO: 77373 \ _.----::.--;:-;-;--;~---1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: See attached for specifics. Generally, this file addresses the 2005\ CPA's initi~t~d 'by ~h_e_CitY..aFld--\ includes two privately initiated amendments -one by Harper (LUA04-146) and one by Molina (LUA05\:9~· -.-. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment to,OOOFeet 14,000 Feet )J4 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or needed to properly assess this proposal. It! h Iv {) , Date 7 DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: October 14, 2005 LUA-OS-006, R, ECF 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (Including prlva1ely Initiated amendment. by Molina and Harper) #2005-M-1, Refinement 01 Relldentlal Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redeslgnatlon of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. Evaluation of the Molina pr0!l0sal ~o redeslgnat~ property In the Anthone Annexation from RLD to RS. low-density residential areas are subject to Increased s~rutJnY upon revl,ew under the Growth Management Act. This application provides an evaluation of all lands currently desIgnated at densities below four du/acrs for compliance with urban brlghHne standard set by the Centra.' Puget So~nd Growth Management Hearings Board. It also provides a review of limited areas of the City and Potentl~1 Annexation Area (PAA) now designated Single Family residential and zoned R-8 that exhibit environmental const~alnts andlor patte~s of development that meet criteria for the Residential low Density designations. The application also Involyes an. examination of the conSistency of allowed uses and development standards of the Resource Conservation zoning, R-1, and R-4 Implementing zoning with the Residential low Density Comprehensive Plan poilcies. #2005-M-2. Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane In unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the Inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potent~al Anne~atlon Are.a. The proposal Is to am~nd the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include, as part of Renton s, Potential Annexation ~rea, .1) an, area approximately 0.5 mile In length and 3.83 acres in size, located at the north end of Ripley lane (zoned ReSidential 6 In King County), and 2) certain shorelands located beyond the corporate limit of Renton, between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington, 12005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land U .. Map to reflect amendment. made by King County during Its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. As part of the 2004 King County Plan update the County added the six- acre Renton Christian Center, located at SE 1841h St. to the Renton Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and amended the ,Urban Gro~~ Boundary to accommodate this change. The six-acre site Is located in the lake Desire area, and is also Inc~uded within the proposed Falrwood Incorporation. These amendments were ratified by the Renton City Council but aClion to amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan is stJlJ required for conSistency with the Countywide Planning POlicies, '2005--M-6, ReView ot Harper request to re-deslgnate land from Single Family Residential with R-e zonIng to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Lend Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Con.'ltency with the AIrport Compatible Land Use Plan A reques~ to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Residential Single FamHy (RS) to Corrid~r Commercl~lln the Tobin nelghb?rhood was submitted by a property owner of two abutting parcels located at 125 and 201 South To?,n Street. The applicant has also requested ,a, ~orresponding zoning change from ReSidential 8 (A-B) to Commercial Arterial (CA). In addition, the City of Renton Initiated a larger review of zoning in the Tobin neighborhood to ~:~~~~ P~:;~:~ptt~~ r~~~~~ request and existing land use deSignations are consistent with the Airport Compatible '2005-M-7, Redeslgnatlon of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center The area for proposed redesignatlon was designated COR (CommerciaVOffiCelResidentlal) in 1999 in support of the Sou~hport development. In many ways, the Southport development typifies the objectives of the Urban Center. It also provides a good example of the conversion of industrial land into mixed use, an important theme In the Comprehensive Plan f~r the Urban Center-, Nort,h (UC-N). For these reasons, inclusion of SOuthport in Renton's Urban Center is desired. ChangJng the land use deSignation from COR to UC-N requires concurrent re-zoning to UC-N2. #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washington Stllte Department ot Transportation remnant adJacent to 1-405 from Commercial Office ResIdential land u .. d.slgnatlon to Rasldentlallow Density land ule designation Thi~ ap~lication reviews a parcel of WSDOT owned land adjacent to 1-405 and the City owned NAECO site for re-~es!gnatlon from Co~mercial Office ReS.ldential to ReSidential low DenSity. The parcel includes portions of unimproved rlght-o'-way and portIons of the Cedar River, The zoning is Resource Conservation. This application is a housekeeping amendment needed to implement conSistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. #2005-!-1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plen Introduction. This application involves amendments and ~~~:~~~~s to the Comprehensive Plan introductory text, incorporating forecast growth and target data and additional NOA 05-00S.doc I2005-T~2, Review text In the UtilitIes Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. Although I,taff uiJda:t~d the goals and pmlcies in the Utilities Element of the Comprehenstve Plan for the 2004 update, the InfD~8tKJn pertaln!ng to private utility purveyors was not updated, It Is necessary to review the infonnation on private utility purveyors In the Comprehensive Plan and recommend areas for amendment. t2005·T·3, Review narrative In the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agencies and programs. Staff updated the Comprehensive Pian Glossary during the 2004 u~date, removing definitions of terms no longer used in the Plan and adding new terms. There are a few terms used In th,e Comprehensive Plan that do not have a glossary entry. Adding a handful of definitions will assist the reader In understanding the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T·4, Amend the maps and language referring to C~mm~rclal Bu .• lne .. DIstrict. 'or cla~Jty. Staff h~s been working on a code amendment to allow limited types of reSidential uses In the Commercial Artenal zone, ThiS code amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Commercial Corridors. However, in the process of producing the necessary code changes, it became apparent that corrections needed to be made to t~e Comprehensive Plan to clarify the terminology used to refer to the specific "Business Districf' portions of the CommerCial Corridor. In addition to a change in nomenclature, the associated maps defining the Busln,ess Districts need t~ be corrected. These corrections should simplify the application of the development regulations 1M the Business Districts, which In turn ensures greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T-5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision, Additional n~rrative is added to the Comprehensive Plan Vision to reflect changes made in the 2005-2006 City of Renton adopted BUSiness Plan. PROJECT LOCATION: The amendments affect properties city-wide, OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Load Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed zOnln~, Therefore, a~ p~rrmtted un~er the ACW 43.21 C.110, the City of Renton Is using the O"lonal ONS process to give notice that a ONS IS likely to be, Issued, comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated Into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS, PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 14, 2005 October 14, 2005 PennltslRevlew Requested: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Unci For ProJect Mitigation: Environmental (SEPA) Review and Prezone Plannlng/BulldlnglPubllc Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 An open record public hearing was held on these issues before the Renton Planning Commission on October 5, 2005, The proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant land use designations and land use policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted in November 2004. Environmental Checklist prepared January14, 2005 This non-project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed MItigation Mee.urel: The analysiS of the proposal does not reveal any adverse envIronmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be Imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject annexation site. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rebecca lind, Planning Manager, Economic Development NeighborhOOds and StrategiC Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 ~~ on October 28. 2005. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish t~ be ':lade a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425) 430-6588 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made 8 party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA05-D06, R, ECF 12005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments NAME: ________________________________________________ __ ADDRESS: ________________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________ _ NOA 05-006,doc CERTIFICATION I, Vt::;. ci/(--h S tt..b /~ ,hereby certify that .:::? copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: /0. Itj. .,)005' SIGNED: Cjja~~) A ITEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of W eJV\ JJ '1 on the t ~ day of aeWb~v VbvD NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: October 14, 2005 LUA-05-006, R, ECF 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PlAN AMENDMENTS (IncludIng prIvately InitIated amendments by Molina Ind Harper) I20()5.M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Denllty mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redeslgn.tlon of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. Evaluation of the Molina pro~ .. ' ~o redesignate property In the Anthone Annexation from RLD to RS. Low-denslty residential areas are subject to Increased s~lny upon review under the Growth Management Act, This application provides an evaluation of all lands currently destgflated at densttles below four dulacre for compliance with urban bright.'ine standard set by the Central Pugst Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. h also provides a review of linlted areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area (PAA) now designated Slngte Family residential and zoned R-8 that exhibit environmental constt:alnts andlor patterns of development that meet criteria for the Residential Low Density designations. The application also Inyo~ an examination of the consistency of allowed uses and development standards of the Resource Conservation zoning, R-" and R-4 implementing zoning wfth the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan policies. nOO5-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane m unincorporated King County and to add shore land currently between the mn ... and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton'. Potential Annexation Area. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include as part of Renton's. Potential Annexation ~rea, .1) an are~ approximately 0.5 mile In length and 3.83 acres In siZe, located 'at the north end of Ripley Lane (zoned ReSidential 61n King County), and 2} certain shoretands located beyond the corporate limit of Renton, between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington. I2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan land Use Map to reflect amendment. made by King County durIng Ita 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. /:" part of the 2004 KIng County Plan update the County added the six. acre Renton Chnstlan Cemer, located at SE 184 5t. to the Renton Potential AMexation Area (PM), and amended the ~rban Gro~ Boundary to accommodate this change. The six-acre site Is located In the Lake Desire area, and Is also IOc~uded within the proposed Falrwood Incorporation. These amendments were ratHled by the Renton City Council but action to amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan is still required for consistency with the Countywide Planning Policies. t2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-deslgnate land from Single Family Residential with R--8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the ~rport to EValuate Consistency wfth the AIrport Compatible Land Use Plan. A request. to change the ComprehensIVe Plan /and use daslgnation from Residential Single FamHy (RS) to Corridor Commercial m the TobIn neighborhood was submitted by a property owner 01 two abuttJng parcol8 located at 125 and 201 South Tobin Street. The appticant has also requested a corresponding zoning change from Reskiential B (R-B) to CommercIal ArterIal (CA). In addition, the City of Renton 1n~lated a larger revtew of zoning In the Tobin neighborhood 10 ~~~~~ P~~:~ =~ request and existing land use designations are conslstent with the Airport Compatible 12005-M-7, Redeslgnatlon of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center The area for proposed redestgnatlon was deSignated COR (CommerclaVOfflcelResidential) in 1999 in support of the So~port development. In many ways, the Southport development typifies Iha objectives of the Urban Center. It also prOVIdes a good example of the conversion of Industrial land into mixed use, an Important theme in the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North (UC-N). For these reasons, inclusion of SOOtI'Iport In Renton's Urban Center is desired Changing the land use designation from COR to UC-N requires concurrent rEt-zoning to UC-N2. . 12005-M-9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1-405 from C~mmerclal Office Re.ldentlalland u •• dulgnatkm to Residential Low Den.1ty land u .. de.'gnatlon ThIS ap~lcatlon reviews a parcel of WSDOT owned land adjacent to 1-405 and the City owned NAECO s~e for I .. ~slgnation 'rom ~m8fClaJ OffICe Residential to Residential Low Density. The parcellnctudes portions of unimproved nght-of·way and portlOllS of the Cedar Rtver. The zoning is Resource Conservation. This application is a housekeeping amendment needed to Implement conslatency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. #2005-T·1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introductfon. This appUcation involves amendments and ~=s to the Comprehensive Pfan Introductory text, Incorporating forecast growth and target data and additional NOA05..Q06.doc #2005-T .2, Review text In the Utilitle. Element pertaining to prtvate utility purveyors. Although s~aff Updat~d the goals and policies in the Utilities Element 01 the Comprehensive Plan tor the 2004 update, the info~ation pertaln.lng to private utility purveyors was not updated. It is necessary to review the infonnation on private utility purveyors In the Comprehensive Plan and recommend areas for amendment. #2()()5..T.3 Review narrative In the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct n~mes of agencies and programs. Staff updated the Comprehensive Plan Gtossary during the 2004 update, removing definitions of terms no longer used in the Plan and adding new terms. Ther~ are a few terms used in t~e Comprehensive Plan that do not have a glossary entry. Addlng a handfut of definitions will assist the reader In understandIng the goals and pollc/as of the Comprehenslva Plan . • 2005-T-4 Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts. for clarity. Staff h~s been working o~ a code amendment to alJow limited types of residential uses in the Comme~ Arterial zone. This code amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and poBcles for Commereial Con1dors. However, In the process of producing the necessary code changes, II bec8me apparent that corrections needed to be made to t~e Comprehensive Plan to clartfy the terminology used to refer to the specHic "Business Districr portions of ~e Commercial Conidor. In additoo to a change i1 nomenclature, the associated maps defining the ~usiness DlS~S need t~ be corrected. These corrections shouk:l slmpHfy the application of the development regulations In the BUSiness Dlstncts, which In tum ensures greater compflance wtth the Comprehensive Plan. "2005-T -5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Additional narrative is added to the Comprehensive Plan Vision to reflect changes made in the 2005-2006 CIty of Renton adopted Business Plan. PROJECT LOCATION: The amendments affect properties clty·wIde. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIACANCE IONS): As the Load Agency, the City of Renton has determined that signifICant environmental impacts are ooliklMy to result from the proposed zonin~. Therefore, as permitted un~er the RCW 43.21 C.ll 0, the CIty of Renton Is using the Optional ONS process to gIve notice that a ONS Is Ake/y to be ISsued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are Integr8"!d Into a sing~ ~ment period. There wiU be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshokl Determination of Non-StgniflCBnc9 (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: January 14, 2005 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 14, 2005 PermltsIRevtew Requested: location where application may berovlewoc/: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: undU .. : Environmental Document. that Evaluate the Proposed ProJect: Development Regulations U.ed For Prolect MHlgatlon: Environmental (SEPA) Revtew and Prezone PlannlnglBundlnglPUbllc Works OMslon, Development ServIces Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 An open record public hearing was held on these issues before the Renton Pianning Commisston on October 5, 2005. The proposed amendments are consistent with the rektvantland use designations and land use policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted In November 2004. Envtrorunental Checklist prepared January14, 2005 ThIs non-project action wttl be subject to the Clty's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other appIlcabla codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed MhfgaUon Measurel: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mttigation may be necessary and may be Imposed at the time of a s~e specific devalopment proposal on the subject annexatton sHe. Comments on the above appllcatloo must be submitted In writing to Rebecca Und, Planning Manager, Economic Dove/opment Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning DivisIon, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 28, 2005. "you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be '!lade a party of record and receive additIOnal notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments wfIt automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any deciston on this protect. CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425) 430-6588 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on thIs proposed project, complete this form and retum 10: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No./Name: LUA05-006, R, ECF 12005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments NAME: __________________________________________ ___ ADDRESS: __________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: _________ _ NOA05-OO8.doc CERTIFICATION I, Dc:r.J:.. JDr4 , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in :::3 conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: lot 11/ os SIGNED: De Il~ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of W hl~on,~~ M~Wf' ,nnth' t~ da~~t.a&2i(. ,. I,.;HAESF KOKKO;' NOTARY PUBLlC~ STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES ,MARCH 19,2006 OTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 14th day of October, 2005, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing NOA, Environmental Checklist, PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Repr$sentlng Agencies See Attached Parties of Record -NOA only See Attached (Signature of Sender): ~J£-~1A/ '.;~~' • n ,--;'"-/'),-;-"...r"" .;i CHAR' F:S F. KOKKO ~ /' C ~ j\!OTARY PUBLIC ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) " ETA"i'E ,'F WASHINGTON ~ ) SS ,,'! <'~;V'i'" , ,,':;'N EXPIR!;::~ ~ ~ ....... ,. j. _'.I. ,...i ~_,.J COUNTY OF KING ) , ';<CH 19, 20{}D ( --·-.r""?·;r'~·~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: /16 to ~ otary Public in and for the Sate of Washington Notary (print):_---=O:......:·/fA;.....;....:...vk~..:..:_r--l./~....;..;e1;;"".~-------- My appointment expires: ~q -06 Project Name: 2005 Comp Plan Amendments Project Number: LUA05-006, R, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * clo Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 -KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing Impression antibourrage et it sechage rapide . UtIIIsei Ie gab8rit 51608 Dan Peck 6101 NE 4th PI Renton, W A 98059 Dawn Courier 19815 98th Ave S Renton, W A 98055 Marilyn Whitney 969 Shelton Ave SE Renton, W A 98055 Alan & Marilyn Johnson 13505 Maple Valley Hwy Renton, W A 98058 JJ Stanker 5912 92nd Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040-5037 Yolanda Lepley 4457 Tokul Rd SE Snoqualmie, W A 98065 --www.avery.com 1-8OO-GO-AVERY Phil Kitzes No S\.llh #=- PK Enterprises 10 Il'l 105' 23035 SE 163rd St Maple Valley, WA 98038 Richard Underwood 2314 NE 28th St Renton, W A 98056 Penny Patricelli 9507 S 198th St Renton, WA 98055 Joanne Scholen 19418 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 Scott Duncan 3316 SE 6th St Renton, W A 98058 Marlin & Barbara Gilbert 3624 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98058 -- Cindy Merritt 14408 SE 100th St Renton, W A 98059 Pat Bader 19249 99th PI S Renton, W A 98055 Shelly Jackson 3915 108th Ave NE #B-304 Bellevue, W A 98004 Robert Nielsen 3209 SE 6th St Renton, W A 98058 Bill Williamson Williamson Law Office 701 5th Avenue, #5500 Seattle, W A 98104 e091.5 llV1dlNll ~eA'I asn 6up.u1Jd H.I:I e6pmi1s pue war Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide UtHIsez Ie gabilrit 51608 Pyuong Su Bonner P.O. Box 853 Bellevue W A 98005 lames Dawson 58 Logan Ave S Renton W A 98055 Dave CHardy 19235 -108th Ave SE #206 Renton WA 98055 Shirley Hunter 215 S Tobin St Renton W A 98055 Gloria & George Mehrens 316 S Tobin St Renton WA 98055 Marilyn Redmond 2914 -108th Ave E Edgewood WA 98372 Fred & Ema Sandoy 220 Shattuck Ave S Renton W A 98055 Robert Stuth & Catherine Ploue-Smith 402 S Tobin St Renton WA 98055 Randy Matheson, Community Relations Renton School District 300 SW 7th Street Renton W A 98055 -- Terri Bowen 315 Taylor Ave NW Renton W A 98055 Ron Fouty 2130 Gingko St SE Auburn WA 98092 0.1. Harper 200 S Tobin St Renton WA 98055 lennifer lorgenson 205 S Tobin St Renton WA 98055 www.avery.com 1-8OO-GO-AVERY ~ AVERY® 5160® Brian Casserly 420 S Tobin St Renton W A 98055 lim Hanson 17446 Mallard Cove Ln Mt Vernon WA 98274 Martin and Anne Healy 314 S Tobin St Renton WA 98055 Ken Lu t--\l)\-d eli ~~~_J 129 Logan Ave S l..(U(..tiru~ Renton W A 98055 lollq/c1) PamelaNel Ron & Betsy Munson 623 Cedar Ave S Renton WA 98055 •. " 563 Bremerton PI NE Renton W A 98059 Glenn Reynolds 55 Logan Ave S Renton WA 98055 Richard Stauff 13813 -139th Ave SE Renton W A 98059 Tom Tobacca 1701 Lake Ave S Renton WA 98055 Ryan Zulauf City of Renton Airport -- Thomas Rivily 17035 -300th Ave NE Duvall WA 98019 Richard Storwick P.O. Box 692 Anacortes W A 98221 1 ennifer Zug 117 Burnett PI S Renton WA 98055 e09l.S ll'(1dWll eftJ.aAv asn 6upufJd ~ e6pnws pue wer Impression antibourrage et it sechage rapide ,UtlIIsez Ie gabartt 51608 Robert & Gilla Bachellerie 6417 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Cherie Lang 6615 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 --www.avery.com 1-8CJO.GO-AVERY Betty & Lee Dellinger 6425 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Ray Giometti 323 Pelly Ave N Renton, W A 98055 David & Sally McCray 6815 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Gregg Smith & Kelly Williams ... 6811 Ripley Ln Susan Lang 7023 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Harold Bruce 6631 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 George & Nancy Johnston 6831 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 John & Nancy Lorge 6437 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Louis & Connie Williams 7005 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Vicente & Jennifer Farinas 6611 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Gerald Barber 7023 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Priscilla, Richard & Gregory Elfers 6823 Ripley Ln .'. Renton, W A 98056 John Houtz 6809 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Jeff Pearce 6421 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Tommy Jones 6603 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 - Mark Gardner & Christie Mueller 6841 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Greg & Sherre Piantanida 7011 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Olaf & Nancy Manz 7009 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Pierre & Christi Thiry 6619 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Matjorie Grundhaus 7001 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Craig Magnusson 6433 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 Robert & Rita Dye 7029 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 ; Scott Gulrek 6625 Ripley Ln Renton, W A 98056 e09~5 UVldWU ~aAV asn 6uAJl!.ld ~ e6pnws pue war NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: October 14, 2005 LUA-05-006, R, ECF 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (Including privately initiated amendments by Molina and Harper) #2005-M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redesignation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. Evaluation of the Molina proposal to redesignate property in the Anthone Annexation from RLD to RS. Low-density residential areas are subject to increased scrutiny upon review under the Growth Management Act. This application provides an evaluation of all lands currently designated at densities below four du/acre for compliance with urban bright-line standard set by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. It also provides a review of limited areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area (PAA) now designated Single Family residential and zoned R-8 that exhibit environmental constraints and/or patterns of development that meet criteria for the Residential Low Density designations. The application also involves an examination of the consistency of allowed uses and development standards of the Resource Conservation zoning, R-1, and R-4 implementing zoning with the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan pOlicies. #2005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane In unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the Inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include, as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area, 1) an area approximately 0.5 mile in length and 3.83 acres in size, located at the north end of Ripley Lane (zoned Residential 6 in King County), and 2) certain shorelands located beyond the corporate limit of Renton, between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington. #2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. As part of the 2004 King County Plan update the County added the six- acre Renton Christian Center, located at SE 184th St. to the Renton Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and amended the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate this change. The six-acre site is located in the Lake Desire area, and is also included within the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. These amendments were ratified by the Renton City Council but action to amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan is still required for consistency with the Countywide Planning Policies. #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-deslgnate land from Single Family Residential with R-8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. A request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Residential Single Family (RS) to Corridor Commercial in the Tobin neighborhood was submitted by a property owner of two abutting parcels located at 125 and 201 South Tobin Street. The applicant has also requested a corresponding zoning change from Residential 8 (R-8) to Commercial Arterial (CA). In addition, the City of Renton initiated a larger review of zoning in the Tobin neighborhood to determine whether the rezoning request and existing land use designations are consistent with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan adopted in 2004. #2005-M-7, Redesignation of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center The area for proposed redesignation was designated COR (Commercial/Office/Residential) in 1999 in support of the Southport development. In many ways, the Southport development typifies the objectives of the Urban Center. It also provides a good example of the conversion of industrial land into mixed use, an important theme in the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North (UC-N). For these reasons, inclusion of Southport in Renton's Urban Center is desired. Changing the land use designation from COR to UC-N requires concurrent re-zoning to UC-N2. #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1-405 from Commercial Office Residential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation This application reviews a parcel of WSDOT owned land adjacent to 1-405 and the City owned NAECO site for re- designation from Commercial Office Residential to Residential Low Density. The parcel includes portions of unimproved right-of-way and portions of the Cedar River. The zoning is Resource Conservation. This application is a housekeeping amendment needed to implement consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. #2005-T-1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. This application involves amendments and corrections to the Comprehensive Plan introductory text, incorporating forecast growth and target data and additional narrative. NOA OS-006.doc #2005-T-2, Review text In the Uti Element pertaining to private utility purveyors lough staff updated the goals and policies in the Utilities EI t of the Comprehensive Plan for the 2004 update, Information pertaining to private utility purveyors was not updated. It is necessary to review the information on private utility purveyors in the Comprehensive Plan and recommend areas for amendment. #2005-T-3, Review narrative In the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to cl':leck and correct names of agencies and programs. Staff updated the Comprehensive Plan Glossary during the 2004 update, removing definitions of terms no longer used in the Plan and adding new terms. There are a few terms used in the Comprehensive Plan that do not have a glossary entry. Adding a handful of definitions will assist the reader in understanding the goals and pOlicies of the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T-4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. Staff has been working on a code amendment to allow limited types of residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. This code amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Commercial Corridors. However, in the process of producing the necessary code changes, it became apparent that corrections needed to be made to the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the terminology used to refer to the specific "Business Districf' portions of the Commercial Corridor. In addition to a change in nomenclature, the associated maps defining the Business Districts need to be corrected. These corrections should simplify the application of the development regulations in the Business Districts, which in turn ensures greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T-5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Additional narrative is added to the Comprehensive Plan Vision to reflect changes made in the 2005-2006 City of Renton adopted Business Plan. PROJECT LOCATION: The amendments affect properties city-wide. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed zoning. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 14, 2005 October 14, 2005 Permits/Review Requested: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Environmental (SEPA) Review and Prezone Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 An open record public hearing was held on these issues before the Renton Planning Commission on October 5, 2005. The proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant land use designations and land use policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted in November 2004. Environmental Checklist prepared January14, 2005 This non-project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject annexation site. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 28, 2005. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425) 430-6588 . , I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA05-006, R, ECF /2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments NAME: ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: _________ _ NOA 05-00S.doc City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: %of~ COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: ~/j1Jl1j COMPANY (if applicable): Gij a.f~eNfJk../ ADDRESS: 14S'S' '5. 0r~ uJ~ CITY: ~ t...Ot'b ZIP:4Bos'~ TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 'I->s (r1;U "~fjt Q:\ WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Fonns\PJanning\masterapp.doc08I29/03 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)lLOCATION AND ZIP CODE: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): EXISTING LAND USE(S): UtvrJl'.14AU:-::'/~.Q~~~1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): M NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): /l.l PF ECTINFORMAT~I_O_N~(~~c_on_t_i1 ___ ~d~) ____________ ~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS [If applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXI TING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN [If applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NO -RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS [If applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL UILDINGS Of applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPL YEO BY THE NEW P~OJECT (if ;;tppl~ble): PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO o FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. o GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. o WETLANDS ___ sq.ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach le.gal description on separate sheet with the following infonnation included) SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION _, TOWNSHIP _, RANGE_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. 3. _.- 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ .. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) ~eLA./.M. C, YlJ , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) Q:\ WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Fonns\Planning\masterapp.doc08I29/03 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ---",:--:--:--_-:--:---:-_--:-::~ signed this instrument and acknowJedged it to be hislherJtheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the-instrument . Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) ___________ _ My appoinlmentexpires: ________ _ PROJECf NARRATNE City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2005 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments I. Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping and implementing zoning citywide. This review will evaluate the currently mapped Residential Low Density Designations, except the East Renton Plateau and 95th Way PAA areas reviewed in 2004. The analysis will also include several Single Family Residential mapped areas that have a significant percentage of critical areas and/or existing patterns of development consistent with the new R-4 zoning standards. The review process will evaluate whether Resource Conservation (RC,) Residential-l (R-I), or Residential- 4(R-4) zoning is appropriate for these sites. The review will also consider whether the City continues to need the Resource Conservation zone to meet its objectives for preservation of critical areas and major public open space and critical areas holdings such as the wetlands mitigation bank in the Valley. 2. North Quendall PAA. This amendment will evaluate whether to add a small strip of unincorporated King County located along Lake Washington north ofPt. Quendall and adjacent to 1-405 into Renton's Potential annexation Area. This area is currently not designated within any city's P AA and cannot be annexed. 3. West Hill or portions of West Hill. This is study to evaluate potential boundaries for an expansion of the PAA into the West Hill area. 4. Review of Renton's existing Potential Annexation Area mapping to consider whether any boundary adjustments are needed. 5. Review of the Urban Growth Boundary to reflect changes made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. King County modified the UOB to include the Renton Christian Center within the Urban Area. Renton's Comprehensive Plan Map and PAA boundary need to be amended to be consistent with this action. 6. Review of Single Family land use designations south of the Airport and north of the Center Downtown designation to evaluate zoning alternatives for improving consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. A private property owner OJ. Harper filed an amendment request for a portion of this area. 7. Re-designation of the Southport site from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center-North Land Use and inclusion of Southport in the Urban Center designation. This CPA will evaluate whether it is advisable to expand the Urban Center to include Southport and whether Southport is best re-developed as part of the Urban Center with UC-N zoning. 8. Re-designation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Olen residential areas from Single Family Residential to Residential Low Density. Both of these neighborhoods are contiguous to Residential Low Density Designations. The Maplewood plats are built out neighborhoods without significant opportunity to absorb infill development due to existing lot sizes below 8,000 square feet. In the case of the Maplewood Addition, the few larger parcels are located within a flood plain and are highly constrained. This amendment will evaluate whether the Residential Low Density Designation with R-4 implementing zoning is more appropriate for these residential areas. 9. 1-405-Cedar River trail. This amendment is a technical correction to the land use map rectifying the designation of a remnant parcel from Commercial Office residential to Residential Low Density. This application is continued from 2003. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments 10. Review of policy text for the Commercial Office Residential land use designation. The analysis will focus on whether the Commercial Office Residential Land Use designation still reflects what the City desires for redevelopment of these areas. Review of these policies would focus on density, both minimum and maximum, range of uses and scale of development 11. Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. The text addressing the Comprehensive Plan Vision was reviewed and updated as part of the 2004 GMA, Update. Remaining sections of the Introduction, the Planning Process, Community History and Profile, Trends, and Growth Projections were not updated. A new Community Profile section is proposed to incorporate these sections. 12. Review of policy text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. These policies were not updated during the 2004 GMA review. 13. Review of narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary to incorporate new terms adopted as part of the 2004 GMA Update. 14. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agencies and programs. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identifies impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non-project actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200S\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.docl0/14/0S A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2005 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton, EDNSP Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, 425-430-6588 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton Wa 98055 4. Date checklist prepared: January 14, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Fall 2005 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. N/A 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. FEIS for the Land Use element 1993,SEIS for the Comprehensive Plan 1995,SEIS for Southport 1999, FEIS Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2003. Environmental Checklists and Determinations of Non-significance for City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments in 1996,1997,1998,19999,200,2001,2002,2003 and 2004. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Action 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. #2005-M-l, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redesignation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. Evaluation of the Molina proposal to redesignate property in the Anthone Annexation from RLD to RS. Low-density residential areas are subject to increased scrutiny upon review under the Growth Management Act. This application provides an evaluation of all lands currently designated at densities below four du/acre for H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendrnents\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 2 compliance with urban bright-line standard set by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. It also provides a review oflimited areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area (P AA) now designated Single Family residential and zoned R-8 that exhibit environmental constraints and/or patterns of development that meet criteria for the Residential Low Density designations. The application also involves an examination of the consistency of allowed uses and development standards of the Resource Conservation zoning, R-l, and R-4 implementing zoning with the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan policies. #2005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane in unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include, as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area, 1) an area approximately 0.5 mile in length and 3.83 acres in size, located at the north end of Ripley Lane (zoned Residential 6 in King County), and 2) certain shorelands located beyond the corporate limit of Renton, between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington. #2005-M-3, Amend the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area to include the West Hill. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to include the West Hill Area as a part of the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. This will also include adopting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations for the area. #2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. As part of the 2004 King County Plan update the County added the six-acre Renton Christian Center, located at SE 184th St. to the Renton Potential Annexation Area (P AA), and amended the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate this change. The six-acre site is located in the Lake Desire area, and is also included within the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. These amendments were ratified by the Renton City Council but action to amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan is still required for consistency with the Countywide Planning Policies. #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-designate land from Single Family Residential with R-8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. A request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Residential Single Family (RS) to Corridor Commercial in the Tobin neighborhood was submitted by a property owner of two abutting parcels located at 125 and 201 South Tobin Street. The applicant has also requested a corresponding zoning change from Residential 8 (R-8) to Commercial Arterial (CA). In addition, the City of Renton initiated a larger review of zoning in the Tobin neighborhood to determine whether the rezoning request and existing land use designations are consistent with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan adopted in 2004. #2005-M-7, Redesignation of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center The area for proposed redesignation was designated COR (Commercial/Office/Residential) in 1999 in support of the Southport development. In many ways, the Southport development typifies the objectives of the Urban Center. It also provides a good example of the conversion of industrial land into mixed use, an important theme in the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North (UC-N). For these reasons, inclusion of Southport in Renton's Urban Center is desired. Changing the land use designation from COR to UC-N requires concurrent re-zoning to UC-N2. #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1-405 from Commercial Office Residential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation This application reviews a parcel of WSDOT owned land adjacent to 1-405 and the City owned NAECO site for re-designation from Commercial Office Residential to Residential Low Density. The parcel includes portions of unimproved right-of-way and portions of the Cedar River. The zoning is Resource Conservation. This application is a housekeeping amendment needed to implement consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. #2005-T-1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. This application involves amendments and corrections to the Comprehensive Plan introductory text, incorporating forecast growth and target data and additional narrative. #2005-T-2, Review text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. Although staff updated the goals and policies in the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the 2004 update, the H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Forrn.doc 3 information pertaining to private utility purveyors was not updated. It is necessary to review the information on private utility purveyors in the Comprehensive Plan and recommend areas for amendment. #2005-T -3, Review narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agencies and programs. Staff updated the Comprehensive Plan Glossary during the 2004 update, removing definitions of terms no longer used in the Plan and adding new terms. There are a few terms used in the Comprehensive Plan that do not have a glossary entry. Adding a handful of definitions will assist the reader in understanding the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T -4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. Staff has been working on a code amendment to allow limited types of residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. This code amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Commercial Corridors. However, in the process of producing the necessary code changes, it became apparent that corrections needed to be made to the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the terminology used to refer to the specific "Business District" portions of the Commercial Corridor. In addition to a change in nomenclature, the associated maps defining the Business Districts need to be corrected. These corrections should simplify the application of the development regulations in the Business Districts, which in turn ensures greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. #2005-T -5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Additional narrative is added to the Comprehensive Plan Vision to reflect changes made in the 2005-2006 City of Renton adopted Business Plan. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 4 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Citywide See attached maps and narrative. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)? Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Not Applicable Non-Project Action f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not Applicable Non-Project Action h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 5 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Portions of the area included in amendment #8, the Maplewood Addition, are in the flood plain. Portions of the areas in Amendment #1 Refinement of Residential Low Density are located in the flood plain 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and antiCipated volume of discharge. Not Applicable Non-Project Action H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 7 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _x_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _x_ shrubs __ x grass _x_ pasture __ crop or grain _x_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _x_ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other _x_ other types of vegetation Plants are present on lands included in the proposed map amendment however this is not a site specific proposal and no development is being evaluated Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 8 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Citywide but map and text amendments are non-project actions Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other __ X ______ _ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other X. ______ _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _X. ____ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 9 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Describe any structures on the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not Applicable Non-Project Action e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, CA, COR zoned areas are included within the proposed amendments f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential Low Density, Residential Single Family, Corridor Commercial and Commercial Office Residential designated properties are included. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable Non-Project Action h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Portions of properties within the group analyzed in Amendment M-1 Refinement of Residential Low Density include environmentally significant lands. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not Applicable Non-Project Action H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 10 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not Applicable Non-Project Action k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 11 Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not Applicable Non-Project Action Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Not Applicable Non-Project Action H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 12 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If Not Applicable Non-Project Action g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not Applicable Non-Project Action C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form Amended.doc 13 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS on policies, plans and Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? 2. The proposed amendments are not expected to increase emissions or result in land uses that release toxic substances or result in noise. The proposed amendments do not significantly change land capacity or land uses allowed in any land use designations. Amendments #1 and #8 could potentially result in some minor changes in density Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Not Applicable as the proposals will not significantly change land capacity of land uses allowed in any land use designation. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Not Applicable as the proposals will not Significantly change land capacity of land uses allowed in any land use designation Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Application M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density Mapping could involve some properties in parks, open space wetlands, and flood plains. These properties will be reviewed and their inclusion in the low-density policy framework confirmed. Properties currently mapped in lower density designations that do have critical areas on the site will be evaluated for designation to a higher density classification. This review is only a refinement and re-check of existing mapping, and Significant changes in mapping are not anticipated. In all cases best available science and critical areas code will be applied to any future development. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Form.doc 14 code will be applied to any future development. In many cases, areas have been downzoned to provide further protection for significant critical areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Amendments #1, 8, 7 and 6 are intended to bring land use in greater compliance with plans and policies including Urban Center policies, Airport Compatible Land Use Policies and environmental protection policies. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Any land use changes resulting from the proposed amendment will be neutral in terms of demands on public service and utilities. A small sub-set of properties may be recommended for a small density increase after further review and recommendation. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Further disclosure of potential capacity increases will be analyzed in the context of proposed policy amendments as a supplement to the ERC report presented to the Responsible Official during SEPA review. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. None Amendments are anticipated to improve consistency and coordination with other policies and laws protecting the environment. SIGNATURE Undersigned, the state, and I that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: (hJ; e tid£{ I 171/ Name Printed: Kbee~(( t-{ {(flF1 Date: ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6/98 {Jut /« 2W~ ,. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2005\City Initiated CPA SEPA Checklist Fonn Amended.doc 15 #2005-M-1, Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping within the Comprehensive Plan and citywide zoning. Redesignation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen from RS to RLD. Evaluation of the Molina proposal to redesignate property in the Anthone Annexation from RLD to RS. Low-density residential areas are subject to increased scrutiny upon review under the Growth Management Act. This application provides an evaluation of all lands currently designated at densities below four du/acre for compliance with urban bright-line standard set by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. It also provides a review of limited areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area (PAA) now designated Single Family residential and zoned R-8 that exhibit environmental constraints and/or patterns of development that meet criteria for the Residential Low Density designations. The application also involves an examination of the conSistency of allowed uses and development standards of the Resource Conservation zoning, R-1, and R-4 implementing zoning with the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan policies. Residential Low Density Figure 1: Vicinity Map o 4000 8000 ~ 1 : 48000 RM-F -MAP 1-- Residential Low Density Lands Inventory Area B -Proposed Zoning Changes e~~ Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + ilia + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ ~ G. Del Rosario 15 August 2005 _ R-1 to R-4 o 300 600 June JDa~~ ~_--' NE 40th S Residential Low Density Lands Inventory Area E -Proposed Zoning Changes and Comp Plan Amendment ® Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + lilt + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G,DeIR~o N II October 2005 I,,~I R-4/R-S to R-1 _ R-Sto RC ~ RSFto RLD o 1000 2000 -MAP3 Residential Low Density Lands Inventory Area K & L -Proposed Zoning Changes and Comprehensive Map Amendments _ R-8 to R-4 ~ RSFtoRLD RC(P) o 500 1000 FUe a'J :C::oc::o:c::C:c:~ I IL SW 27th St 1M SW 2Sth ~ I~ -0 0::::: >-. Q) o >- W SW B4th St IH -0 0::::: >-. . Q) o >- CA Residential Low Density Lands Inventory R-10 Area P -Zoning Changes and Comp Plan Amendment 0 600 1200 _ R-8 to R-1 E22 RSF to RLD FddC:c~:cCd:JtooooooooooJldiiddccca::~:::C:~CCdCCC::1 R-l R-l MAPS Residential Low Density Lands Inventory Area V -Proposed Pre-Zoning and Comp Plan Amendment e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + am + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G. Del Rosario ~"T ... Q 15 August 2005 _ R-4 I77A o~t: f,., 01 n RC(P 203rd St o 500 1000 Fcc::cmc::cb;;Jmm:"::@:c*c'mI~ Recommend that changes be made to the uses for the R-l and RC zones to restrict activities of an urban size, scale, and intensity and allow for greater protection of sensitive areas. T bi fR a eo d dU Ch ecommen e se anges III t h R 1 e -zone Use Current Code Proposed Code Adult Day Care II H Day Care Centers H25 Convalescent Centers H Medical Institutions H T bi fR a eo d dU Ch ecommen e se . th RC anges III e zone Use Current Code Proposed Code Group Homes II for 6 or less P AD Group Homes II for 7 or more P Retirement Residences H Cemetery H Service and social organizations H Bed and Breakfast, professional AD H Adult Day Care II H Day Care Centers H25 Convalescent Centers H Medical Institutions H Blank= not allowed, P=permitted use, AD= administrative conditional use, H= Hearings Examiner conditional use, #25= A preschool or day care center, when accessory to a public or community facility listed in RMC 4-2-060J, is considered a permitted use #2005-M-2, Land Use Map Amendment to add an area located at Ripley Lane in unincorporated King County and to add shoreland currently between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington to the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include, as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area, 1) an area approximately 0.5 mile in length and 3.83 acres in size, located at the north end of Ripley Lane (zoned Residential 6 in King County), and 2) certain shorelands located beyond the corporate limit of Renton, between the inner and outer harbor lines of Lake Washington. #2005-M-3, Amend the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area to include the West Hill. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to include the West Hill Area as a part of the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. This will also include adopting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations for the area. West Hill and PM o 6000 12000 Figure 1: Vicinity Map 1 : 72000 #2005-M-5, Amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect amendments made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. As part of the 2004 Kin~ County Plan update the County added the six-acre Renton Christian Center, located at SE 1841 St. to the Renton Potential Annexation Area (PAA) , and amended the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate this change. The six-acre site is located in the Lake Desire area, and is also included within the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. These amendments were ratified by the Renton City Council but action to amend the Renton Comprehensive Plan is still required for consistency with the Countywide Planning Policies. Renton Christian Center o 1000 2000 cCllcceac~c:~ccc~ccccc~c~ Figure 1: Vicinity Map 1 : 12000 #2005-M-6, Review of Harper request to re-designate land from Single Family Residential with R-8 zoning to Corridor Commercial with Commercial Arterial Zoning at 125 and 201 Tobin Street, and Review of Single Family Land Use Designations South of the Airport to Evaluate Consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. A request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Residential Single Family (RS) to Corridor Commercial in the Tobin neighborhood was submitted by a property owner of two abutting parcels located at 125 and 201 South Tobin Street. The appl icant has also requested a corresponding zoning change from Residential 8 (R-8) to Commercial Arterial (CA). In addition, the City of Renton initiated a larger review of zoning in the Tobin neighborhood to determine whether the rezoning request and existing land use designations are consistent with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan adopted in 2004. N 6th St. o Airport Way South Tobin Street Residential Figure 1: Vicinity Map o 600 1200 ~""mmc' c "'4 1 : 7200 #2005-M-7, Redesignation of the Southport from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center The area for proposed redesignation was designated COR (Commercial/Office/Residential) in 1999 in support of the Southport development. In many ways, the Southport development typifies the objectives of the Urban Center. It also provides a good example of the conversion of industrial land into mixed use, an important theme in the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North (UC-N). For these reasons, inclusion of Southport in Renton's Urban Center is desired. Changing the land use designation from COR to UC-N requires concurrent re-zoning to UC-N2. Southport Figure 1: Vicinity Map e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + am + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G. Del Rosario ljN 14 January 2005 o 1500 3000 ~c":"~ 1 : 18000 #2005-M-9, Redesignate Washington State Department of Transportation remnant adjacent to 1-405 from Commercial Office Residential land use designation to Residential Low Density land use designation This application reviews a parcel of WSDOT owned land adjacent to 1-405 and the City owned NAECO site for re-designation from Commercial Office Residential to Residential Low Density. The parcel includes portions of unimproved right-of-way and portions of the Cedar River. The zoning is Resource Conservation. This application is a housekeeping amendment needed to implement consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. ··ab .._-\ - -r:L_ WSDOT -River (2003-M-03) Landuse & Zoning Map eJ~ Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning . lID + Alex Pietsch. Administrator ~ G. 0.1 Rosario 3 July 2003 .'i~ .•••• d6~~-_. -.--.--.....+-..... __ ._-CI: -_ .. -..... -.. - ~ CD-Center Downtown ~ COR-Center Office Residential ~ EAC-Employment Area Commercial ~ RR-Residential Rural c::::::J RS-Residential Single Family ~_ I(lOcQcccccc:QQ ~~~~~~---_-~ 1 : 2400 -StudyArea #2005-T -1, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. This application involves amendments and corrections to the Comprehensive Plan introductory text, incorporating forecast growth and target data and additional narrative. Why Plan:' ~CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS INTRODUCTION It is the city government'sCity of Renton's primary responsibility to provide public services and facilities, develop policies, and adopt regulations that ensure the public health, safety, and welfare. The City govemment is also charged with guiding to guide the growth of a city that meets the needs of its peoplethe City so that quality oflife of the community and opportunities for its citizens remain high. The guide for Renton's growth and development is the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act GMA: The City of Renton is revising its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the State of Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990. This legislation requires cities in rapidly growing areas to adopt Comprehensive Plans \vhich that include land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, parks, human services, and transportation elements. All elements of the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with each other and with adopted state \videstatewide and county widecotmtywide adopted planning goals. State- wide Statewide planning goals include provisions which that discourage urban sprawl, support affordable housing, m:ge-protectie-n ef-the environment, and support provision of adequate urban services. In addition to these requirements, plans must be designed to accommodate 20 year20-year growth forecasts, determined by regional agencies and local jurisdictions, within wen definedwell-defined ~urban growth areas.: Regional or countywide planning has defined "urban centers" in locations where concentrations of people and uses may be logical. Cities and counties have worked cooperatively to identify where the provision of urban services may be appropriate (the urban growth areas), where urban-rural transition areas are located, and where low density population and low intensity uses will be situated. ~lhat is a The Comprehensive Plan-1- A-The comprehensive Comprehensive ~Plan (Plan) is a broad statement of community goals, objectives, and policies that direct~ the orderly and coordinated physical development of a-the e#y-Q1yinto the future. A-Renton' s comprehensive Comprehensive pla:n-Plal1 anticipates change and provides specific guidance for future legislative and administrative actions. It reflects ~the results of citizen involvement, technical analysis, and the judgment creativity and experience of decision-makers in City govemment. The Vision, goals, objectives, policies, and maps ofthe pla:n-Plan provide the basis foundation for the adoption of regulations, programs, and services which that implement the planflan. The Planpla:n-serves as a guidelffie for designating land uses. aHEl infrastructure development, and as well as developing community services. [The following paragraph is moved up from below 1 \Vhat's in this Plan? +his-The comprehensive plan Plan is designed to be a readable, functional document that wHl-guide§ Renton's future development and fulfill§ the City's regional responsibilities ffi toward state-mandated growth management. The Plan This plan contains background infomlation on Renton's community history and profile, citywide trends, and local and regional growth projections and the Vision. The Plan summarizes a Vision for Renton that has been endorsed by the community. The "Elements" Each of the elements that follow of the Plan contain goals, objectives~ and policies that further the evolution ofthe City toward attaining that Vision. Who Plans? The Planning Process Renton residents, business owners, and City staff work together to shape the future of their-community through the ongoing development of the Comprehensive Plan. The planning process provides an opportunity for individual citizens to contribute to this effort by attending community meetings to identify, study, and resolve issues of concern or by serving on committees, task forces, boards~ or commissions that function as citizen advisors to the City Council. [The following paragraph moved up from below 1 Citizen Partieipation Because public input is vital to effective planning, the City encourages community groups, businesses, and individuals are invited and encouraged to work together with City staff to identify and achieve community goals. The following principles should guide allthe future planning effortsprocess: ~Encourage and facilitate public participation in all phases of the planning processes and make those processes user friendly. • Work to ensure that the planning process is accessible to all citizens, that it is consistent, timely, and can be widely understood by all potential participants. • Base land use decisions on Consider the interests ofthe entire community and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive thts-Plan!. before making land use decisions. • Demonstrate that proposed Proponents of change in land use change should demonstrate that the proposed change responds to the interests and changing needs ofthe entire City, balanced v/ith the interests of and the neighborhoods mesklirectly impacted by the project, as well as the property owner and the project proponent. Ensure that the process 'tvhich identifies new commercial areas or expands existing areas considers the impacts of potential development on affected residential neighborhoods and results in decisions that are consistent with other policies in the Comprehensive Plan. ~Balance the interests of the-commercial and residential communities when considering modifications to zoning or development regulations. _. _Encourage and emphasize open communication between developers and neighbors about compatibility land use issues. • Strive for compatibility of land use within the City. The primary responsibility for formulating the Comprehensive Plan rests with the Planning Commission. The Commission is a citizens' committee of citizen volunteers appointed by the Mayor to make recommendations to the Council for land use er-policy changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Before making a recommendation, the Commission conducts public hearings on behalf of the Council. _Information and comments presented by individual citizens and citizen community organizations are weighed by the Planning Commission as it prepares Plan revision a-recommendations to the City Council-ffif revisions to the Plan. The ultimate final planning decisions are made by the City Council. The Council is responsible for initiating plan reviews, considering Planning Commission recommendations, and adopting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. To implement the Plan, the Council is also responsible for adopting the City!s budget, regulations, and programs, and for levying taxes and making appropriations. Citizen Partieipation [The following paragraph was moved up] Because public input is vital to effective planning, the City encourages community groups, businesses, and individuals to V/Ork together with City staff to identify and achieve community goals. The following principles should guide all future planning efforts: • Encourage and facilitate public participation in all planning processes and make those processes user friendly. • Consider the interests of the entire community and the goals and policies ofthis Plan before making land use decisions. Proponents of change in land use should demonstrate that the proposed change responds to the interests and changing needs of the entire City, balanced with the interests of the neighborhoods most directly impacted by the proj ect. Ensure that the process which identifies new commercial areas or expands existing areas considers the impacts of potential development on affected residential neighborhoods and results in decisions that are consistent with other policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Balance the interests of the commercial and residential communities 'Nhen considering modifications to zoning or development regulations. • Encourage and emphasize open communication between developers and neighbors about compatibility issues. "'hat's in this Plan? (The following paragraph was moved upJ This comprehensive plan is designed to be a readable, functional document that will guide Renton's future del/elopment and fulfill the City's regional responsibilities in growth management. This plan contains community history and profile, trends, growth projections and the Vision. Each of the elements that follow contain goals, objectives and policies. [The following paragraph has been moved up] Amendments taChanging the Comprehensive Plan Because the City is constantly evolving, it may be occasionally necessary to make revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. These changes are in the form of After proper study and deliberation, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.!. may be recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City Council wiH-consider~ amendments to the Plan, based on recommendations made by the Planning Commission, not more than annuallyonce a year, (exceptunless .foF-in the case of an emergenciesemergency). Proposed amendments may be submitted by the annual deadline during the first quarter of the year by the Mayor, Planning Commission, City Council, Planning Commission, or private parties. How is the Plan lmplemented?lmplementing the Comprehensive Plan After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the fifst-next step toward realizing the City's vision Vision is implementation. Examples The Plan is implemented throughef implementation measures are: revisions to the Development Standards and Zoning Code, deyelopment of a Neighborhood Enhancement Program, participation in the King County Historic Preservation Program, and creation ofincentiyes for priYate development to incorporate community design features such as public gathering places, art, street fumiture and landscaping. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan [This paragraph was moved up] After proper study and deliberation, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City Council1Nill consider amendments to the Plan not more than rumually, eJwept for emergencies. Proposed amendments may be submitted during the first quarter of the year by the Mayor, Planning Commission, City Council, or private parties. [The following paragraph was moved up] GMA: The City of Renton is revising its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the State of Washington Growth Management Act of 1990. This legislation requires cities in rapidly gro'.'1ing areas to adopt Comprehensive Plans which include land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities and transportation elements. All elements of the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with each other and with state wide and county wide adopted planning goals. State '.vide planning goals include provisions which discourage urban spra .... A, support affurdable housing, urge protection of the environment, and support provision of adequate urban services. In addition to these requirements, plans must be designed to accommodate 20 year growth furecasts, detelmined by regional agencies and local jurisdictions, \'/1thin well defined urban growth areas. COMMUNITY HISTORYCITY OF RENTON BACKGROUND AND PROFILE Location and Physical Setting Renton is a-city-Iocated at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. It is a city with strong residential neighborhoods, a strong industrial employment base, and a growing commercial/office sector. Its location between approximately equidistant from the central business districts of Seattle, and Bellevue, and within close proximity to downtown Tacoma .. places Renton in the center of a re gionregion that is the economic hub ofthe StateNorthwest. The City is at the crossroads of a regional transportation network where seven State and Interstate highways converge and is cen tralcentral to national and international air traffietravel. Renton covers apprmcimately 16more than 17 square miles of land and is bordered by King County, Kent, Tukwila, Newcastle .. and Bellevue with Seattle nearby. The freeway system is a dominant visual feature ofthis city. Interstate 405 and SR 167 bisect the City, create visual barriers within the community, and define the edges of districts and neighborhoods. It is from this li-seway system that many people experience their first impression ofthe City. It in eludes portions ofthe valleys through \'/hich the Cedar and Green RiYers flO'll as well as adj acent uplands to the east and northeast. The natural features that define the edges of the City and its neighborhoods include Lake Washington, th&-hills, plateaus, stream corridors, and the valleys of the Green and Cedar Rivers. While development over time has changed the appearance of the community, the natural features have generally remained constant. One exception to this is in the Valleys where farmland and wetlands have been converted to other, more intensive uses. This is because these lands are relatively flat and less expensive to develop thus making them more attractive fur uses requiring large amounts ofland. Much of the development that has occurred in the valleys and the urban area over the last furty years has focused on accommodating the automobile, rather than the pedestrian. Renton has a strong sense of community. It is made up of both long-established and vibrant new a city with strong residential neighborhoods, a strong industrial employment base, and a growing commercial/office retail sector. Renton has a strong sense of community. Renton's Residential residential areas aFe typicallyhave traditionally been organized around schools, parks and other institutions. Renton's Both new and existing neighborhoods offer a-a-diverse housing stock wide- ranging in unit size, style, type .. and price. Although it is one of the older cities within the region, Renton still has vacant and underused land in many neighborhoods, including the historic downtown, which that offer an opportunity for growth. The plateau areas hold major residential neighborhoods and grovlth is expected in this area. Abundant views and green wooded areas characterize the hillsides encircling the downtown and along the Cedar River and May and Honey Creek§. The topography and location ofthe City afford beautiful scenic views of a variety of significant natural features including Mt. Rainier, the Olympic Mountains, Lake Washington, and the-the Olympic and Cascade Mountains. Renton's Past TrurDuwamish Native Americans tribe-were-the earliest known Native American people to live in what is now Renton. The Duwamish had their villages near the conlluence of Lake Washington, the Cedar and Black River§ confluence, the Black River and Lake 'Nashington confluence and at the base of Earlington Hill. In 1853, east coast entrepreneur Henry Tobin came upon this area and lay--laid claim to a square half mile an area at the conlluence of the Cedar and Black River§ confluence. Being at the confluence of two rivers near a large lake was thought to be ideal for siting a future city for industrial and commercial growth with navigable transportation nearby. The City of Renton was formally established in 1875 with the platting of 480 acres of land by Erasmus Smithers in 1856. This original plat comprises much of present downtm'ln Renton. The town grew as local coal deposits were mined. The downtovm core, evolved out o[the first plat of the town filedfiling of a plat in ~by the officers of the Renton Coal Company. +ffi.s-The plat included the area fFem the Cedar River south to Seventh Street, between Burnett Street and Mill Avenuethat now forms the downtown core. Early industries and businesses included coal mining, lumber, brick making, and rail and freight transportation. Early grocery stores and other family-run stores were located in what is presently downtown Renton. The downtown core was linked to other communities by both the Walla Walla Railroad and the Puget Sound Electric Railway. In its early days Renton had many stores businesses ranging including ffem-banking, drug, hardware .. antl-junk, grocery, clothing, and home furnishings stores and banking. In 1901, upon incorporation, the City had a total area of one square mile. Since then, incremental annexations have increased the size of the City to encompass approximately .J4.+17.3 square miles. Employment in Renton has beenwas dominated by industry sinee-from when the City was first settled in the mid 1800's. Be causeBecause of the nearby forests and prox imityproximity to water for transport, the first local industry was timber harvesting and processing. Beginning in the 1870's and continuing through the 1940's, Renton was known for its coal mining and brick making op erationsoperations. Other industries included production and transport of lumber, and the supply of steel, pig iron, and equipment to railroad companies. During this period, the City established itself as an important industrial center. The Boeing Company's decision in the early 1940s to build a new plant at the south end of Lake Washington dramatically influenced the City's future. Rapid growth of the Boeing Company together with the merger ofand Pacific Car and Foundry ffite (P ACCAR}~ accelerated the City's rise as a regional industrial and employment center. With construction of the Boeing Company's Renton plant, Renton was transformed from a small town of 4,500 population to a thriving city with a population of 16,039 in the decade from 1940-1950!. with construction of the Boeing Company's Renton plant. With the shift away from rail toward automobile and truck transportation in the 1940s and 1950s, a new type of regional transportation hub was created in Renton. Two major freeways (Interstate 405 and SR 167) and three State highways (SR 900,515, and 169) augmented and replaced the rail system. This road system was developed to provide a regional -network allowing access around Lake Washington to serve the Renton industrial area. During this period, the transportation demand shifted from exporting raw materials to importing a major work force. The industrial employment center§ developed at the same locations formerly occupied by extractive industries--perhaps in part because the transportation network to serve these sites was already well established. This became important-because the industrial area remained in the heart of the City and was served by a transportation network vmich that converged on the downtown area. Renton is again experiencing transition of its "downtown" industrial area, as the Boeing Renton Plant within Renton's Urban Center becomes available for redevelopment as mixed-use residential, retaiVcommercial, office and light industrial uses. Once again, the transportation network is expected to be well positioned to further the transition. Renton developed as an independent city with its own downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods. Through a continuing series of annexations, it has expanded from one square mile in 1901 to sixteen more than 17 square miles in +99+20051• With continued growth, the City provided provides more and more urban services to an increasing number of businesses and residents. Community ProfileReutou Today Renton has grown from a small .. compact town, nestled in the Cedar River and Green River Valleyson the shore of the lake, to a mueh-Iarger city which that now spreads across the Cedar and Green River valley Valley floors and iffi&onto the adjacent hills. Renton's nearest neighbors, Kent and Tukwila, have grown similarly. Once separated by rural areas and open space, Renton and its neighbors cities are new-growing together and becoming have become part of the larger Puget Sound metropolitan region. Incorporated in 1901, Renton is fifth oldest of King County's 39 cities and ranks fourth in the County in population size2• Renton is the fourteenth most populous city in the stateJ and King County is the seventeenth most populous county in the nation2• The 2000 U.S. Census indicated that Renton had a population increase over the previous ten years of more than 20 percent. Only 1.5 percent onhe increase is attributable to annexations. An increase in population of almost 10 percent between 2000 and 2003 indicates that Renton has become one of the fastest growing cities in King County7. Renton is currently home to more than 43,97054,900 (1994 OFM) people1 and ranks fourth in population in King County. In Renton, the largest age group of the population are people of working age (18 to 64 years) at 34,016, five to seventeen year-olds number 7,392, those sixty-five and over number 5,123, and 3,521-are under five2. The median age is 35.7 years. The increase in the Renton School District No. 403 population between 1990 and 2000, 18 percent2, was slightly less than the citywide increase. Some annexations during that period included areas ofthe Issaquah School District (school district boundaries are typically unaffected by changing city boundaries). As the population of the City grows, it also becomes more diverse. The 2000 census indicated that only 68 percent of the population considers itself as white, a change from 83.5 percent from the previous census. Both the Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latino populations more than doubled during the 1990s and the number of Hispanic students in Renton schools increased by 379 percent. An additional 60,00063,600 people live in the unincorporated area surrounding the City in the Fairwood area (40,600), on West Hill/Bryn Mawr/Skyway (14,300), and on the East Plateau (8,700). It is a city with many well established neighborhoods as 'Hell as some new neighborhoods. Renton continues to be an important center of employment. The average wealth of Renton households is $226,3955• Approximately 8.5 percent of the working age population (18 to 64) lives below the poverty levee. The assessed value of Renton's land area (in thousands of dollars) is 6,272,6326. Over 45,OOOAlmost 52,000 people work for 2.312 employers5 and at 1,517 businesses in the eity Renton. each day. Most of these people ',york for the Boeing Company or PACCAR Company, which continue to be major players in the local and regional economy. These jobs, that are covered by Washington State unemployment insurance, are divided into sectors by type. Manufacturing. with almost 21,000 jobs remains Renton's largest sector. This indicates that The Boeing Company and PAC CAR remain major players in the local and regional economy. The next most significant sector, with 11,413 employees. is the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and other Services sector. 2 Renton, historically, has been a small eity-tovvn and in many ways it still resembles a small towncity. But several factors place it on the threshold of change: the continued vitality of Renton's industrial sector; regional population growth; and its location at the crossroads oflocal, national, and international tFaf:H.etransportation. These factors foreshadow a new role for Renton as an important metropolitan center in the Region. Renton, along with the rest of the region and the countryNorthwest, has been experiencing an increase in professional and service jobs over the past few years. Boeing's related research and development facilities in and around Renton have been a major factor in the development of office parks along Gradysouth of the downtown and m-at the north end of the Green River Valley. At the same time, there has been increased demand for goods and services as evidenced by the number and types of commercial ases along Rainier Avenuebusinesses in the City. As more land is converteddeveloped t&-for office and commercial use§ there will be less available for future industrial uses and the type of jobs they provide. The pressures of economic growth and progress have resulted in the construction of office buildings, factories, housing projects, and supporting infrastructure in the City. A network of freeways, arterials and transmission lines criss-cross Renton and both connect and divide the community. Development occurring outside of the City has also affected the character of the communityRenton. Regional shopping centers competing with Renton's downtown retail core have resulted in a shift in marketable goods in the downtown from general merchandise to specialty items. This transition has changed the visual character of the downtown as businesses open or relocate. Within the next few years, as the first redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant occurs, it is anticipated that major national retailers will locate in Renton and provide counter-competition for the shopping malls locate nearby at Factoria and Southcenter. Vacant land remains scattered throughout Renton, but, as time passesinfill development continues, land will become an increasingly scarce resource. Some vacant land, located outside of the Urban Center, is environmentally sensitive and may not be suitable for intensive development. As annexations occur, some undeveloped land will become available. However, based on current estimates, tThere are approximately ~975 acres of vacant and developable land within the City ofm-Renton. +he-Ofthis, the largest blocks of vacant land are generally found in Renton's outlying areas. Smaller pockets parcels of vacant land and vacant lots aTethat are available for development can be found in most of the City's existing neighborhoods. The challenge for Renton is to manage growth in a manner which that maintains the desirable features of the City while being flexible enough to take advantage of opportunities for change. TRENDS Rapid regional grm,vth has produced development pressure throughout the City. As in many other communities, recentDuring the 1980s and 1990s, commercial development in Renton has-shifted away from downtown, and-as a growing number of retail and office uses aTe locating located along major roadways and '.vithin residential neighborhoods. While Although this increases may have-increased the-convenience to some residents, it also erodes eroded the viability ofthe downtown, contributes contributed to traffic congestion, intrudes intruded upon neighborhoods ... and encourages encouraged strip~ commercial development along the major thoroughfares throughout the City and the adjacent unincorporated area. In addition, multi family development, which is increasing as a percentage orthe total housing stock, is frequently clustered around these commercial developments along major arterials. At the end ofthe decade and the beginning of the new century, however, Renton's downtown core saw several significant developments that indicated a turn-around of the former trend had begun. City-initiated redevelopment of the Piazza area, including a multi-story public parking garage, a transit center, and performing arts center enhanced several privately initiated mixed-use residential/commercial developments. Following this energetic infusion of creative energy and financing, focus shifted from the Urban Center -Downtown to the Urban Center -North. Changes in The Boeing Company business plan resulted in the surplus of approximately 45 acres of land by 2004. The first step toward transition of an area used for industrial manufacturing for over sixty years into an urban mixed-use neighborhood had been taken. [Note: For a discussion oftrends in residential land use, see the Housing Element ofthis Plan 1 SiBgle Family: Traditionally, single family development has consumed the greatest amount of the City's developable land. However, according to the 1990 Census, in recent years (behveenl980 89), the supply of multi family housing has grown at a faster rate than single family housing. Between 1980 and 1990, 5600 housing units were built in Renton: 67% of these were multi family units. This has brought the amount of multi family housing within the eity from roughly 40% onhe total housing stock in 1980 to 50% in 1990. If current trends continue, the City's total supply of multi family housing could outpace single family housing in the future. Multi family Development: Multi family units in Renton inereased at a faster rate than single family units between 1980 and 1990. Single family increased 12%, mobile homes increased 112%, 5 9 unit multi family increased 141 % and 10 49 units multifamily 94%. This growth pattern changed the overall percentage of multi family housing as a percentage of the housing stock from roughly 40% in 1980 to 50% by 1990. Commercial CeBtersCorridors: Due to relatively low land cost, it is expected that Continuation of the low intensity, suburban~ growth pattern seen along Renton's commercial corridors wi11likely result in more commercial shopping areas in the Renton planning area, and expansion oCthe existing commercial areas along arterials and into surrounding neighborhoods within the Citycontinue, at least until land values rise. Evidence of this development pattern can be seen in the Coal Creek area, Benson Hill and Fairwood, and along Sunset and Duvall in Rentonalong NE 4th Street. Strip commercial is another common result of low intensity development, especially along principal and major arterial routes; one example is along both sides of Benson Road south ofCarr/SE 176th. Unfortunately this development pattern carries economic and environmental costs to the entire City. Economically there is a cost for the extra driving required for work and personal trips. In terms of environmental costs there is the declining air quality from automobile emissions .. aHd-inefficient land use .. and disruptions to existing neighborhoods. Institutions: The expansion of the Valley Medical Center and related development is expected to continue, although like ~Renton Technical College, available land is limited. is currently expanding its operations on campus. As both of these institutional uses grow to serve the region, they are expectedwill need to expand beyond their current boundaries aHd-into surrounding neighborhoods. Industrial: Industrial employment, especially manufacturing, is declining nation-wide. In the Puget Sound region, while the proportion of jobs in the industrial sector is projected to decline, the number of manufacturing jobs in this area is expected to remain relatively stable, at least through the year 2020. While The Boeing Company has largely consolidated existing operations at the Renton Plant onto less space, any change that would reduce their industrial workforce could have a significant impact on this sector in the local area, ifnot the region. In Renton, commercial uses and services were adversely affected by the downturn in the information technology industry in the late 1990s. The biggest impact of this event however, was on , mainly office vacancies, which rose significantly and, at mid-decade, were just starting to tum around .. and services are increasing as a sector of the employment base. This trend reflects the increased situation slowed the demand for office and service uses which is-until then was a healthy indicatorsymptomatic of the regional,. and local, economy's gradual shift from an industrial base to a service base. HO'tvever, this trend is not as pro nounced in Renton as elsewhere for two important reasons. First, according to the 1989 Community Profile, the City has a large, existing, industrial employment base, and second,it also has a relatively large supply of land in industrial uses (14%). This compares to 7% for commercial use and 24% for residential use. Industrial zoning accounted for 23% of ' vacant lands 'Nhile commercial vias 2.8%, public use 8.4% and residential 65.5%. In Renton the most noticeable changes are occurring in the mix and type of industrial activities within the City. Most noticeable is a trend away from heavy industrial/manufacturing toward medium and light industrial uses. Although manufacturing is expected to remain stable and industrial jobs are expected to decline, the number of light and medium industrial jobs in wholesale/transportation/communications/ utilities is projected to nearly double in the Renton area through 2020. Renton sees itself as an ideal market area for uses based on the biotechnology industry. In addition to Renton, several Puget Sound Region urban areas are competing for this niche market. A second trend is a blurring of land use category descriptions as technology changes-the way work is done and more activities include office and computer components. This change is manifested by an increase in the mixes of uses, either within one company or within one building or complex. For example, many businesses are constellations oflight industrial, manufacturing. research and development .. and office uses. The ideal situation, in tenns of regional needs (reduction of traffic on arterials), would add residential uses to that mix. Changes are expected to occur in Renton's employment areas incrementally over a long period oftime. Some industrial areas, such as the Boeing Renton Plant in North Renton, wHl-are now being redeveloped into other uses .. but in some cases inappropriate inadequate infrastructure or high cost of the cleanup of contaminants on the site may limit redevelopment. In other cases .. viable industrial uses exist on a site and will continue to operate for several years .. but property owners may anticipate a change in use over the long term. For example, both the Old Stoneway Cement Plant and Barbee Mill sites have submitted proposals for future projects mixing office and residential uses. Although the rate of change in industrial lands is slow it is significant because if too much land is converted to non:-industrial uses, it could have a detrimental effect on retaining the industrial base. The industrial area of the Valley is not expected to change in either use or size in the near term. The office and service sector is expanding in terms of both overall acreage and intensity of use. New mid rise office development of 4 6 stories is spreading south and north of the downtown in areas previously zoned industrial. Commercial retail and service areas outside ofthe downtown are gradually spravAing along major arterials. In these areas the trend is toward continuation onow rise automobile oriented commercial developments. In many cases these developments compete with businesses in dovmtovm Renton. In several areas ofthe City light industrial developments 'Nhich were displaced by higher intensity uses in the dov+11town core/north Valley, or need older structures or cheaper land, are locating along the City's arterials. Offiee DevelopmeBt: Office deyelopment is currently occurring or proposed in and around downtov.Ql Renton in the Green River Valley, North Renton, and Kennydale. Development pressure for new office construction is e)(pected to continue in Renton due to the existing large employment base, availability of land and the relatively good freeway access. Improved transit service in the areas is expected to enhance this trend. Schools: Multiple use of school facilities has been a trend that v/illlikelymay continue as long as security does not become an insurmountable issue. Following its peak in 1970, Renton School District enrollment has been declining overall since its peak in +9+Odec1ined. '¥hile enrollment has declined by 24% since 1970,at the rate of decline has slowed fromof 15% during the 1970's t&-and 10% during the 1980's. Enrollment increased, however between 1990 and 2000, by 18 percent. is dovt'll slightly from 1990 figures but overall it is rela tively stable. Although school district boundaries are not affected by annexations, Long tenn projections anticipate larger enrollments and an increased need for facilities in the district based on increased birth rates for the popUlation in general. Religious Centers: The trend over the past few decade§ er-se-has been for religious groups to provide more services to their members and the public at large. These services require additional land and facilities including that for schools, gymnasiums, offices, parking, expanded hOUf1; ofwor ship and social services. Hours of worship, typically on the weekend, have expanded to include other activities on weekdays and evenings. As a result these facilities are having a greater impact on adja centadjacent neighborhoods and the existing infrastructure. Open Space: Renton is developinghas an ambitious open space/greenway acquisition program within the Department of Community Services. The program's main goals are to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural areas in an urban environment and to af fordensure public access to these areas with limited development and disturbances. Many of the sites will remain relatively undisturbed, while wildlife and habitat areas that are less fragile will be more developed with park and recreation facilities and allow greater public access. As the City of Renton grewhas grown, many ofthose portions ofthe City vlhich that have naturally occurring hazardous features were passed over for land more easily developed. Now, however, with the amount of easily developable land diminishing, the critical areas are becoming more attractive for urban uses. Annexation: The City has historically undertaken annexation in response to requests from local property owners. For many years most annexations v/ere of small areas v/hich were al ready urbanized. Future trends There are three types of annexations that may be initiated by property owners or by the Cit yare likely to be three types of annexations: I) annexation of larger" undeveloped parcels that can now be provided with City of Renton utility service within the urban designated area;_ -2) annexation of smaller infill parcels within urban area whichthat are already developed at urban densities, but lack urban levels of services such as sewer; and 3) annexation of commercial and/or residential neighborhoods within the urban designated area whichthat have already developed in King County to county standards. TraffieTransportation: There is one setidunchanging traffic transportation trend within the region: traffic is increasing. l"L variety ofSeveral reasons explainfactors are responsible for this increase: the growth in population, jobs and housing; mere-an increase in people are now commuting within the region and making longer trips; the location of employment and price of housing, which impacts influences the length and variety ~oftrips made; new housing development that is occurring on vacant land in outlying parts ofthe metropolitan area rather than on land closer to traditional urban centers (again, a function of the cost of housing and its relationship to the scale of wages; and employment areas are the relocating relocation of employment areas to suburban areas (frequently a function ofland and transportation costs). The general increase in standard of living in the region also generates more traffic because, as the standard of living goes up, car ownership increases and so does trip making. In addition, the average length of trips is also increasing. The cumulative effect of all of these factors is more cars on the road and greater traffic congestion. Current traffic improvement projects and programs undertaken by the City's Transportation Division include realignment of the S CUFles and the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to Interstate 405, completion of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., the vlidening of Grady 'Nay, development and implementation of the North Renton Transportation Plan, and establishment of a system of truck routes. The City is also presently working on expansion of its system of pedestrian and bicycle trails. Airport: The airport Renton Mlmicipal Airport is already a heavily used facility and demand on the airport continues to increase steadily-grow. This growth is primarily due to the Airport's function as a "reliever" facility for air traffic from the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The other nearby reliever airport, "Boeing Field" (the King County International Airport), is frequently unavailable because if is functioning at about 98 percent capacity. An additional factor is the increase in the number of small private planes and corporate jets and the closure of other general aviation airports in the region such as those whleh that were at Bellevue, Issaquah, and Kent. It is also partially due to the increases in production at the Boeing plant. In addition~ there is increased demand for seaplane activity at the Will Rogers / Wiley Post Memorial seaplane Seaplane ease-Base due to closure of seaplane similar facilities elsewhere in the region. The expected trend is continued increase in demand at the Airport. This demand may be balanced, somewhat, by a corresponding decrease in Airport use by The Boeing Company as it changes the nature of its business in Renton. For example, 2004 saw the closing ofthe Boeing 757 production line. Since the Renton Airport is the exiting mechanism for Boeing aircraft, following assembly, this change and other Boeing corporate changes will undoubtedly affect the Airport. The timing of anticipated changes, however, remains unknown to the City. Public Facilities: There is no one trend which can be used to describe these various facilitiesPublic facilities are not measured by "trends" so much as public will and available financing. In Renton, the late 1990s and early part ofthe next decade saw a significant increase in the inventory of major pubic facilities. These include the development of a "central park" (the Piazza in downtown), a public parking garage, a transit center, a performing arts center, a skateboard park, and a new public water park. For example, some municipal facilities may become more decentralized in the future while others could do the opposite. Library facilities, at least for the remainder of this decade, are not expected to decentralize. Expectations are that the main facility downto\yn and the Highlands branch will continue to serve the needs of the community. Most municipal administrative functions are also expected to remain centralized with the development of a new municipal complex in the dovmtown. Fire Ser'liees: Fire services by their nature must be decentralized in order to provide adequate protection for the entire City. As the City grows in population and land area, additional fire stations \-'fill be needed for n9'N and currently under served areas. The Fire Depflrtment 1~{8ster Pfflli (March 1987) cites the Kennydale and Tiffany Park neighborhoods and the Green River Valley industrial area as having level of service deficiencies due to the response time to those areas. In addition, it states, "Ifannextltiens eccur in the East Kenny<iaie, Sierra Heights, and East Duvall Avenue cermnunities mid ill the CeatiT Ri-;er cerrifier, they 'will havc subsffl;'itlerd./ire protection btlSed en thefive in .five stan atlrd and cttrrellt sltltion locations. /I The "fi'ie in five" standard is the department's desired level of service; to have five fire fighters on the scene £lye minutes after receiving the call. Downtown: The Downtown Renton Association is leading an effort to change the gradual decline in the downtown shopping area. Downtown merchants are working with the City to implement a redevelopment concept for the downtO'f'<'n emphasizing mixed use development, including residential uses, and supporting additional street amenities and parking improvements .. Although this effort is too nevI to show many results, several new developments are in process including a multi story senior housing complex. Environment: In addition, the development within the City'S sphere of influence and 'liithin the City itself has contributed to some environmental changes. Because ofthe increase in im pervious surfaces and land clearing, run offhas increased, and consequently flooding has also increased in downstream areas. Streams and rivers have experienced increased siltation from erosion resulting in flooding and delta formations. \Xfhile no seismic events orany magnitude have occurred, those areas of Renton 'liith higher seismic risks than others could be affected in the future. Additional inappropriate development in these areas could pose a public safety risk in future seismic e'lents. The historical coal mines oCthe area were not fully documented and many abandoned mine shafts eJdst in areas which 't'lilllikely be used for urban growth. Finally, each year the City has landslides which threaten private property, and impede roads and utilities. Urban growth will probably continue to spread into the remaining rural areas and open space that no'fi' separates Renton from adjacent urban areas. As Renton's downtown grows, it is likely to remain as a relatively low profile urban center. Destination ori ented specialty shopping \,<,ill dravt' patrons from the local and regional area. CUlTently, the City is working in cooperation with the DO't\'ntov,n Renton Association to improve the urban design oCthe area. Commercial and industrial development \vithin Renton'lIill continue to be primarily auto oriented and dominated by large surface parking lots. On a city v,ide basis, only modest improYements are likely to be seen in the pedestrian environment. Renton's residential areas will foml loosely defined neighborhoods con sisting primarily ofa collection of housing developments. GROWTH PROJECTIONS During the last part of the 1980s there 'Nas an increase in the popUlation of Renton and the unincorporated area surrounding the City. The number ofwor1( places within the City has also increased. As a result ofthis growth, vacant land was converted to de velopment. Vacant land not in public ownership or protected by land use regulation is rapidly disappearing as the City matures. In addition, the value of the remaining open land is increasing. Trends are identified for the pumose of extrapolating them into projections of the future. Although trends are continuously affected by external factors beyond the control of government, there is still a need to evaluate trends in order to both measure current effectiveness of government policy and have indicators that policy adjustments may be necessary. Population In 1990, the population of the Renton planning area was estimated at 101,600. This area includes the City of Renton as ',veIl as unincorporated urban areas surrounding the city including portions of8kyway, the East Renton Plateau and North 800s Creek. Of the total Renton planning area population, 43,970 (1994 OFM) people lived within the City of Renton and roughly 60,000 people lived in the currently unincorporated portions of the planning area. Although the population of Renton grew 20 percent in the decade of the '90s, that was actually a decreased rate from the 1980s, which saw the City's population increase by 36 percent2• The 2001-2022 Household Growth Target for the City of Renton is 6,198 (households to be accommodated by 2022). The decrease in the rate of population growth is reflected in the revision ofthis number, down from the original 1992-2012 Growth Target of 8,9602• [For additional information on residential growth and housing. see the Housing Element ofthis Plan.! Population growth is directly tied to employment, partially because the number of those entering the workforce fluctuates as the birthrate goes up or down almost two decades earlier. Employment In 1990, it was estimates estimated showed that the number of jobs in the City of Renton (48,602) would increase approximately 59,656 employees working within the Renton planning area; about 53,851 (86%) of these employees worked within the City of Renton. By the year 2010, employment in the Renton planning area is forecast to increase by an additional 32,218 jobs. l\pproximately hY-27,300-by the year 201 O.ofthese new jobs (85%) 'liould be located within current city boundaries. Because Renton's urban center is almost at build out in terms of total jobs, most onhe employment growth would happen in Employment Areas outside of the Urban Center mainly located within the Green River Valley. What actually happened was that employment in Renton dropped in the first half of the decade by almost 20 percent. Although those lost jobs were regained and job growth grew somewhat dming the latter half of the decade, another downturn between 2000 and 2002 resulted in a loss of about 6 percent of the 2000 total. Although there are signs that the economy is improving, jobs would have to increase by about 32 percent by 2010 to meet the projection made in 1990. In a relatively small city, such as Renton, where there are a few large employers, such as Boeing, the employment rates are subject to wide fluctuations. In order to get a sense of the long-term projection of employment growth, it may be valuable to look at what is expected to occur on a larger scale. The average annual growth rate between 1970 and 2003, statewide, was 2.4 percent. It is expected that this rate will decrease to about 1.1 percent for the years 2003 to 2030. It is predicted that a higher rate, 1.4 percent will occur from 2003 to 2010, then that rate will slow to about 0.9 percent between 2010 and 203013. The reasons for this decline may be seen locally as well as on a larger scale. The population is aging and birth rates are declining. There are possibilities that the rate could be influenced by factors such as a workforce made larger by a greater number of immigrants, should immigration regulations be relaxed, or by workers staying in the workforce beyond the traditional retirement age range of 62 to 65. The latter situation may be caused by disincentives to retirement caused by changes in pension plans or an increase in the Social Security retirement age and other changes to that program. Originally, it was expected that Preliminary King County employment growth targets would askfor the City of Renton to accommodate fewerjobswould be lower than growth forecasts because the Countywide Planning Policies direct job growth from non-urban center areas into urban centers. Because and Renton's urban center is almostwas considered almost totally built out. Approximately 4,000 fewer jobs than preliminary growth targets were expected to be accommodated in the City. However, changes in the Boeing Company business plan and subsequent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would allow much more intense land use in the Urban Center has changed that condition. and cannot accommodate a significant amount of employment growth, this approach would direct job grO'+vth from non urban center areas in Renton into urban centers 'Nhich have not yet approached build out. Preliminary growth targets vlould ask Renton to plan for roughly 4,000 fewer jobs than gro'",th forecasts. Preliminary growth targets for the unincorporated portions of Renton's planning area hil'l'e not yet been proposed by King County. Both the growth forecasts and growth targets, however, indicate substantial employment grovlth within the Renton planning area over the next 20 years. This significant growth in employment will create a strong associated demand for housing growth '",ithin the Renton area. Nevertheless, the decrease in the employment rate that is expected state-wide in the coming decades is an indicator that a similar situation will be experienced in Renton, although the numbers will be higher. The situation may be typified by the terms, "growing, but sluggish economy." A goal will be to ensure that the availability ofland for housing remains high enough so that as the employment rate increases at whatever rate is seen, the cost of housing workers will stay within the range of affordability . .Household The City is planning for a twenty year period of growth. In 1990, the City of Renton had a total population of41,395 persons. \Vith the 60,198 people residing in the annexation area, the total population for the Planning Area (city plus annexation area) in 1990 was 101,593. This translates to 18,031 households in the City, 22,392 households in the annexation area, or a total of 40,423 households in the Planning Area in 1990. Expected increases in population will result in 57,409 persons (or 25,956 households) living within the current city lilnits by the year 2010; and, 77,752 persons (or 29,128 households) in the annexation area. The total forecasted population of Renton's Planning Area is expected to be 135,161 persons (or 55,084 households) by 2010. #2005-T -2, Review text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. Although staff updated the goals and policies in the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the 2004 update, the information pertaining to private utility purveyors was not updated. It is necessary to review the information on private utility purveyors in the Comprehensive Plan and recommend areas for amendment. UTILITIES ELEMENT GOAL Facilitate the development and maintenance of all utilities at the appropriate levels of service to accommodate the growth that is anticipated in the City of Renton. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 1 of 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary .................................................................................................................................... XII-3 General Policies ......................................................................................................................... XII-3 City Managed Utilities ............................................................................................................... XII-4 Non-City Managed Utilities ....................................................................................................... XII-5 Water Supply ............................................................................................................................. XII-6 Wastewater System .................................................................................................................... XII-IO Surface Water ............................................................................................................................ XII-17 Solid Waste ................................................................................................................................ XII-23 Electrical Systems ...................................................................................................................... XII-30 Natural Gas and Fuel Pipelines .................................................................................................. XII-35 Telecommunications .................................................................................................................. XII-40 Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 2 of 46 Summary: The Utilities Element guides future utility service within the greater Renton area. It helps ensure that adequate utilities will be available to both existing and new development. It also ensures that utility improvements will be used to help implement the Comprehensive Plan and will be phased according to community priorities. The Utilities Element indicates how utility improvements can be used to maintain equitable levels of service, guarantee public health and safety~ and serve new development in a timely manner. In addition, the Utilities Element defines how to minimize the detrimental impacts of utility improvements on surrounding development as well as the community as a whole. The Utilities Elements looks to promote efficiency in the provision or improvement of service wherever appropriate and feasible. In addition, it asks that the costs of improvements should be distributed in an equitable manner. Beyond the ~eity's existing boundaries, the Utilities Element fosters coordination with regional and adjacent utility systems. It also guides the provision of services to areas outside of the City, but within the City's planning area especially in cases of annexation. The City of Renton provides water, wastewater, and storm water utility services for citizens residing within the city limits and by agreement with other purveyors for some areas located outside of the City's boundaries. Renton contracts with a private hauler for collection of solid waste and residential recycling. Other utility services that affect the City and are dis6ussed "'lithiA this Draft BaekgreuAd Report include: cable television, conventional telephone, fiber optic cable systems, cellular telephone service, natural gas, petroleum products, and electricity. (See the Annexation Section of the Land Use Element, the Storm water Section of the Environmental Element and the Capital Facilities Elementfor additional policies related to the Utilities Element.) General Policies Discussion: The following general policies are designed to ensure that utility services are safely and efficiently provided, and are constructed in an environmentally sound manner that reasonably mitigates impacts on adjacent land uses. The policies also emphasize cooperation and coordination with other agencies, jurisdictions, and purveyors to create and maintain utilities. Objective U-A: Provide an adequate level of public utilities in response to and consistent with land use, protection of the environment, and annexation goals and policies. Policy U-l. Utility facilities and services should be consistent with the growth and development concepts directed by the Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-2. Promote the collocation of new public and private utility distribution lines with planned or pre-existing systems (both above and below ground) in joint trenches and/or right-of-ways where environmentally, technically, economically~ and legally feasible. Policy U-3. Process permits and approvals for utilities and facilities in a fair and timely manner and in accord with development regulations that encourage predictability. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 3 of 46 Policy U-4. Strive to protect the health and safety of Renton citizens from recognized harmful effects of utility generated environmental hazards. Policy U-5. Encourage the appropriate siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning of all utility systems in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy U-6. Where appropriate, encourage conservation in coordination with other utilities and jurisdictions. Policy U-7. Continue to encourage the coordination of non-emergency utility trenching activities and street repair to reduce impacts on mobility, aesthetics, noise, and other disruptions. Policy U-S. Continue to coordinate the construction and replacement of City-managed utilities with other public and private infrastructure~ Policy U-9. Where appropriate, work cooperatively with other jurisdictions to ensure that reliable and cost-effective utilities are available to meet increasing demands resulting from local and regional growth. Policy U-IO. Where appropriate require reasonable landscape screening of site-specific aboveground utility facilities in order to diminish visual impacts. City-Managed Utilities in order to minimize construction related disruptions and contain costs. Policy U-H. Identify utility capacity needed to accommodate growth prior to annexation. Do not annex areas where adequate utility capacity cannot be provided. Discussion: The follOWing general policies are designed to ensure that utility services are provided concurrently with new development. The policies are designed to prevent unplanned, disorderly land development, which can demand costly infrastructure upgrades and expensive temporary solutions. Annexation policies related to utility provision are intended to create a strong connection between land use and infrastructure implementation programs. City utility facilities expansion is intended to further the long-term development goals of the City rather than to promote extension of the utility system of a separate entity. Objective U-B: Provide and maintain safe, reliable and adequate utility facilities and services for the City's current and future service area to meet peak-anticipated demands of the City in an efficient, economic, and environmentally responsible manner. Policy U-12. Approval of development should be conditioned on utility systems with capacity to serve the development, without decreasing locally established levels of service being in place or with a financial commitment to provide service within a specified time frame. Policy U-13. Coordinate the extension of utility services with expected growth and development. Policy U-14. Apply level of service standards consistently throughout the service area for city- owned or managed utilities. If necessary, this level-of-service standard may be phased-in over time. Policy U-IS. Preference should be given to capital facility improvements that will support the development and redevelopment of the Downtown, mixed-use centers, the Urban Center, and other high growth areas concurrent with anticipated growth. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 4 of 46 Policy U-16. Encourage the use of water and energy conservation technologies throughout the City. Policy U-17. Timely and orderly extension of City provided utility services (water, sanitary sewer, surface water, solid waste) should be provided within the City's existing and future service areas to meet public health and safety requirements. Policy U-IS. Water, sewer, and storm water facilities and services should be in place prior to occupancy of development projects. Policy U-19. Implementation and coordination programs for the improvement, phasing and financing of water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure should be developed consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-20. All development should be required to pay an equitable share of construction costs for improvements to utility systems for water, sanitary sewer, and storm water necessitated by that development. When utility improvements will provide a general public benefit, the City may contribute funds for the construction of improvements to utility systems to support the public interest. Policy U-21. Upon annexation, if there is a threat to health and safety, the City may require upgrading of the deficient infrastructure as a condition of the annexation. Policy U-22. The City shall not be responsible for funding the immediate upgrading of utility systems located in annexed areas. At such time that the existing infrastructure is replaced, upgraded or extended, the new infrastructure must conform to City of Renton standards. Policy U-23. When an annexation encompasses property served by a utility district, and that district continues to provide service, that district will be required to execute a franchise agreement with the City in order to operate within the City. Non-City Managed Utilities Policy U-24. The owners of all properties, located in unincorporated portions of the Renton Planning Area and outside of municipal service areas, should agree to develop in accordance with specified City development standards, if granted City utilities. Exceptions would be allowed in the cases of threats to public health and safety. Policy U-24.1. The owners of all properties located in unincorporated King County that are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) that receive City water services should be required to sign a covenant to annex. Policy U-25. Pursue future annexation of all lands that have recorded covenants to annex or that receive City water and sewer service using the 60% Assessed Valuation method of direct petition or other methods that allow for the enforcement of covenants not to oppose future annexation. Policy U-26. In the event of a threat to public health and safety, the City utilities may use utility resources to prevent or mitigate such threats. Discussion: The following policies are designed to ensure Renton is aware of proposed non-city managed utility facility upgrades and that utility purveyors are fully aware of the City's needs. Objective U-C: Ensure non-City managed utilities provide service commensurate with required state- mandated public service obligations and established safety and welfare standards. Policy U-27. Coordinate data exchange with utility planners for use with the City of Renton's geographic information system. Policy U-28. Upon renewal, all franchise agreements should be reviewed for compliance with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the State of Washington Growth Management Act. Policy U-29. New telecommunications and electric utility distribution lines should be installed underground within the City where practical in accordance with rules, regulations, and tariffs applicable to the serving utility. Policy U-30. New or reconstructed structures, towers, and transmission lines should be designed Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 5 of 46 to minimize aesthetic impacts appropriate to their surroundings whenever practical. Policy U-31. Coordinate periodic updating of the utility element and relevant implementing development regulations with adjacent jurisdictions and purveyors. Policy U-32. Encourage the exchange of information relevant to public and private planning processes. Policy U-33. Recognize and continue to allow existing utility facilities that may have regional significance within the City, consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-34. Ensure that development regulations are consistent with and do not otherwise impair the Water Supply Background fulfillment of the serving utilities' public service obligations. The Renton Water Utility is operated as a self-supporting enterprise utility under the direction ofthe Mayor and City Council. Operations are guided by policies of the City of Renton Comprehensive Water System Plan, 1998. (Update scheduled for adoption in 2005.) City of Renton Utility Service Area The City of Renton's Water Utility System provides service to an area approximately 16 square miles in size, and to more than 14,700 customer accounts (Figure 2-1). In addition, the City supplies water on a wholesale basis to the Bryn MawrlLakeridge Water District through a single metered connection. Boundaries of the water service area are defined by the City and approved by King County. The City's service area boundaries are not necessarily the same as the corporate boundaries of the City. Agreements between Renton and adjacent purveyors allow Renton to serve some areas outside of the city limits and provide for other districts to serve limited areas within Renton's corporate limit. Existing City Water Supply Facilities Within City Limits Current active and primary water supply sources include five wells drawing water from the Cedar Valley aquifer, three wells from the Maplewood aquifer and one artesian spring. The wells provide eighty-six percent (86%) of the City's water production. In addition, the City maintains seven metered backup water supply interties with Seattle Public Utilities, one emergency intertie with the City of Kent and one emergency intertie with the City of Tukwila. Water treatment consists of chlorination, fluoridation, and corrosion control. As a result of Renton's topography, Renton's service area encompasses twelve hydraulically distinct pressure zones. A system of booster pump stations and pressure reducing stations allow water transfer between zones. Currently there are eight reservoirs in the City's water supply system, strategically located to provide adequate equalizing and fire flow storage. Pressure reducing valves are used to supply lower pressure zones from higher- pressure zones that contain water reservoirs. Capacity of Existing Facilities City's active wells and Springbrook Springs currently provide 11,900 gallons per minute (gpm) or 17.14 million gallons per day (mgd). The back up Maplewood wells and emergency well can deliver an additional 7,000 gpm or 10.08 mgd. Together, active, standby, and emergency wells provide 18,900 gpm or 27.22 mgd. Emergency interties with neighboring cities and water districts can provide 12,000 gpm or 17.28 mgd. The Washington State Department of Health has established guidelines for estimating the amount of supply necessary for adequate water supply. Based on composite growth forecasts, the City has sufficient on-line supply capacity to meet demands through at least 2020. Forecasted Conditions -City of Renton City of Renton Future Water Utility Service Needs Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 6 of 46 The following forecasts are based on Puget Sound Regional Council projections, which have been allocated by the City of Renton, based on local assumptions. Expected increases in population will result in a total of 61,694 persons (or 26,940 households) living within the current city limits by the year 2010; and, 77,752 persons (or 29,128 households) in the annexation area. The total forecast population of Renton's Planning Area is expected to be 139,446 persons (or 60,893 households) by 2010. The total projected maximum day demand by 2010 of about 19.9 mgd is anticipated and provided for in the adopted and approved 1998 Renton Comprehensive Water System Plan. The completion of the Maplewood wells, booster pump station and water treatment facility in 1998 should produce adequate quantities of water to accommodate projected growth, provided the City's existing supply is not lost through contamination or some other unforeseen event. City of Renton Future Source of Supply Water demand will continue to increase as the City's population grows. In response, the City has rehabilitated one emergency well in the Cedar Valley aquifer and developed three others on the Maplewood aquifer. Ifno other supply sources are developed, the additional supply from the three wells will adequately meet demands until at least 2020, Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 7 of 46 Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 8 of 46 Figure 2-1 Water System Plan Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 9 of 46 Figure 2-2 Existing Water System Discussion: Groundwater is Renton /s primary source of drinking water. Nearly all of the City's water supply comes from the shallow Cedar Valley Aquifer and from Springbrook Springs. Development of groundwater supply has been successful in that it has provided substantial volumes of very high quality water. It is assumed that the potential for increased withdrawal rates is possible and that the aquifer is the City's best source of long-term water supply. The Cedar Valley aquifer is shallow and is covered by permeable material. Therefore, potential contamination problems exist from industrial, commercial, and residential development in the aquifer recharge area and from the transportation of contaminants through the aquifer area. Groundwater contamination would directly and immediately affect all Renton water customers. The Renton City Council has ranked aquifer protection as its number one priority, and it is the single most important issue in providing a reliable water supply to the service area. The City must assure that water supplies will be adequate to serve foture growth. This can be accomplished through prudent use of current sources, the acquisition of new sources, and water reuse programs. In Renton, thousands of gallons a day of high quality drinking water are currently expended in applications for which reclaimed water is a possible substitute. The cost of treating effluent for reuse is generally less than acquiring and developing potable water supply for non-potable uses. Using reclaimed water also improves the quality of water bodies by reducing the amount of effluent discharged into them from wastewater treatment plants. Renton is integrating a reuse program into its water resource management program. The maximum level of sustainable draw from the City's groundwater system is not currently known. Therefore, it would not be prudent to commit Renton /s potable water resources to supplying future growth in areas outside of Renton's present city limits when other service options are available. Obligating the City to provide unincorporated areas with water might impede annexations. This policy direction is not intended to preclude provision to neighboring areas prompted by emergency conditions. These policies will help the City ensure that adequate water supply is available to serve all portions of the municipal service area at adopted standards. Objective U-D: Provide, protect, and maintain a consistent, ample, and safe water supply for the City and future service areas. Policy U-35. Protect water resources to assure continued long-term, high quality groundwater and artesian spring water supplies. Policy U-36. Ensure that there is an adequate supply of high quality potable water to meet current and future water needs. Policy U-37. The intensity and type of development should be limited in the Aquifer Protection Area to those types of development that do not create adverse impacts on the aquifer. Policy U-38. Designate and protect areas of aquifer recharge within the City's Potential Annexation Area boundary. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 10 of 46 Policy U-39. Water supply sources (i.e. wells, and Springbrook Springs) should be protected from uses and activities that have been determined to be hazardous to these sources. Policy U-40. Continue to promote the efficient and responsible use of water through conservation and public education programs. Policy U-41. New alternative source supplies of potable water should be developed through wells or other sources. Policy U-42. The City's Water Utility will strive to meet maximum day demand during a reasonable "worst case" supply system failure. Policy U-43. Coordinate with the regional wastewater purveyor to develop programs to substitute reclaimed wastewater for potable water in landscape watering, heating and cooling buildings, and other safe uses, whenever practical. Policy U-44. The availability of adequate fire flow should be assured prior to the issuance of commercial or industrial building permits or the approval of residential subdivisions. Policy U-4S. Allow extensions of water service without annexation, to areas outside of the city limits: 1) when such areas are within the City's water service area, or 2) when no other reasonable service is available AND it is determined by the City and/or State Department of Health that a public health emergency exists or is imminent. Policy U-46. Renton Water Utility will serve areas annexed to the City that do not have existing municipal supply. Policy U-47. Renton will not supply water to areas annexed with other existing municipal water suppliers and water districts. Policy U-48. Renton will use water service boundaries, established by agreement as a result of regional coordinated water system plans and agreements with neighboring cities and water districts. Wastewater System Policy U-49. Renton will follow state guidelines in assuming portions of adjacent water systems as a result of annexation. Policy U-SO. Continue to actively participate in regional supply forums in order to reduce the cost of service and improve reliability, quantity and water quality. Policy U-S1. Pursue the elimination of all supply from the Seattle Cedar River Transmission Pipelines, and supply all customers within the Water System's service area from the City's supply sources. However, the Seattle supply meters will remain operational to provide emergency supply if it is necessary. Policy U-S2. Areas annexed with existing municipal water supply should be responsible for the costs of utility system improvements needed to raise the level of service to City standards. These upgrades may be phased over time if necessary. Policy U-S3. The City may defer compliance with Renton Water Standards in the case of temporary or emergency water service. Policy U-S4. Utilize water conservation and reuse programs to ensure adequate water supply to meet the essential needs of the community. Discussion: Septic systems are not appropriate means of providing wastewater service in urban or aquifer protection areas. Therefore, these policies support the provision of primary wastewater service through an extensive sanitary sewer system throughout the municipal service area. This system is intended to serve both new and existing development in a manner consistent with planned land uses and at an appropriate level of service. Service by the sanitary sewer system should be in place at the time of development. Existing Conditions The Renton Wastewater Utility is operated as a self-supporting enterprise utility under the direction of the Mayor and City Council. Operations are guided by policies of the City of Renton Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan (current version adopted October, 1999). City of Renton Utility Service Area Renton's sanitary sewer service is provided by the City's Wastewater Utility. Portions of Renton are served by adjacent water and sewer districts, under interlocal agreements. Boundaries separating the City's sewer service Utilities Element Redline.doc Page II of 46 area from adjacent districts have been agreed upon by the purveyors and the City. It has been Renton's policy to allow these districts to continue to serve areas after annexation by Renton until assumption of service to these areas is logical, in accordance with state law, and in the City's interest. Figure 3-1 shows existing service areas for Renton and adjacent districts. The City of Renton Wastewater Utility serves approximately 13,800 customers (residential and business) which includes approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the City's population and eighty-five (85%) percent of the City's land area. The remaining five percent (5%) of the population currently uses private, on-site, wastewater disposal systems. General Description of Existing City Wastewater Facilities The City of Renton is divided into seven major wastewater collection basins, each of which consists of one or more sub-basins. For the most part, these collection basins and sub-basins follow the natural drainage patterns of the Renton service area. Where the collection basins do not follow the natural drainage patterns, it is typically due to lack of downstream facilities and the need to pump from a given point into an adjacent drainage basin. 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 (King County) at over 70 locations within the City's service area. The sewage is then conveyed to King County's South Plant at Renton. Currently, King County's wastewater treatment consists of primary treatment, secondary treatment, and bio-solids processing. The location of Renton's sewer interceptors and lift stations, as well as King County's sewer trunk lines and treatment facility, are shown on Figure 3-2. Capacity of Existing City Wastewater Facilities Computer hydraulic modeling of the City's system has revealed that facilities in several basins are near capacity. These areas are addressed in the Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan and the Six-Year Wastewater Capital Improvement Program. In addition, there is a capacity issue related to King County's handling of flows. During peak flows, King County will use its interceptors for storage of wastewater and for controlling flows in the South Treatment Plant in Renton. This results in wastewater backing up into King County interceptors. King County reserves the right to allow wastewater to back up in its interceptors to an elevation of 25 feet. Although King County has never reached this extreme, King County's storage of wastewater in its interceptors has caused Renton's sewers to surcharge (back up) in low-lying areas through manhole covers and back up side sewer connections into homes and businesses. Reliability of Existing City Wastewater Facilities Problems associated with the City's gravity sewer system include the age of the system, improper construction or settlement, penetration by tree roots, and grease buildup. The 23 lift stations operated by the City pose a different kind of reliability problem. Unlike gravity sewers, lift stations are subject to power and mechanical failures, and thus are less reliable. They also require higher maintenance and operation costs and cause increased adverse impacts on downstream facilities. Some lift stations are in need of replacement because of age and deterioration. Other stations are in good shape, however, they lack some of the safety or reliability features required under current codes. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 12 of 46 Figure 3-1 Sanitary Sewer Collection Basins Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 13 of 46 Figure 3.2 Sanitary Sewer Trunk Lines Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 14 of 46 Forecasted Conditions Future Capacity of Facilities The wastewater collection system currently has no capacity restraints. However, continued development within the Lake Washington East Basin will require that additional capacity be provided by means of the Sunset Interceptor. These improvements are currently scheduled in the Wastewater Six-year Capital Improvement Program. The most significant amount of increased flow is anticipated to occur in the East Cedar River Basin. Sufficient capacity exists within this basin to accommodate this anticipated growth due to the construction of the East Renton Interceptor in the mid-1990s. Significant additional growth will also continue to occur within the West Cedar River, Black River, and Lake Washington West Basins. The current modeling of the system shows sufficient capacity to accommodate this growth as well. The utility is currently developing a new hydraulic model to update its modeling to fit recently completed flow analysis performed system wide as part of King County's Regional Inflow and Infiltration Study, scheduled for completion in early 2005. This update to the program will help the utility to better understand what, if any, additional capacity restraints may exist within its system. The City of Renton has several agreements with adjacent utilities that allow joint use of facilities within the City. Adjacent utility systems' comprehensive plans predict the future capacity they will need when they convey wastewater through Renton. However, adjustments to the City's interceptors may need to be made as these systems further clarify their needs. While these agreements restrict the volume of wastewater discharged to the joint use facilities, if wastewater flows from adjacent upstream utilities exceed the agreed upon flows, then capacity problems could occur. Reduction of inflow and infiltration in Renton's collection system will help to make additional capacity available for anticipated growth and development. This will also reduce King County's need to make expensive additions or improvements to increase the capacity of their treatment and conveyance facilities. King County's adopted wastewater plan, based on Puget Sound Regional Council population and employment projections, includes system improvements necessary to meet service levels in the area served by the regional wastewater conveyance system and treatment plant in Renton. Future System Reliability -City of Renton If proper attention is paid to the on-going inspection, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of City mains, the reliability of Renton's sewer system is expected to remain at an adequate level. A significant portion of the City's wastewater collection and conveyance system is over fifty years old. The materials used for sewers at the time these were installed are expected to have a useful life of approximately fifty years. Some of these mains are in an elevated need of repair and are ranked high in priority in Renton's 20- year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The old mains are continually being inspected to determine which ones will need to be replaced during the second half of the 20-year CIP. Not all the fifty-plus year old mains are in the 20-year CIP. Continual evaluation of these facilities may indicate the need to re-prioritize CIP projects and dictate the advancement of some programs to ensure the integrity of the system. The 2005 update of the Wastewater Long-Range Management Plan will further evaluate the priority of replacements. Proposed sewer projects are ranked according to a prioritization process based on defined needs. The ranking system, at this time, includes categories that give points for improving substandard or deteriorating facilities, increasing the efficiency of the system, and protecting the environment. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 15 of 46 Objective U-E: Provide and maintain a sanitary sewer collection system that is consistent with the public health and water quality objectives of the State of Washington and the City of Renton. Policy U-55. Ensure and encourage the use of the sanitary sewer system within urban areas in a manner consistent with land use and environmental protection goals and policies. Policy U-56. All new developments should be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system, except low-density single-family residential development located away from environmentally sensitive areas, outside of Aquifer Protection Areas, and having adequate soils to support on-site septic systems. Policy U-57. Sewer connections should be provided in presently unsewered areas if the areas, by remaining unsewered, pose a health hazard to the aquifer, or if other groundwater contamination occurs. Policy U-58. Adequate sewer service capacity should be assured prior to the approval of any new development application (e.g. short plat, long plat, multifamily, commercial, and industrial development). Policy U-59. Sewer service should be expanded so that the current levels of service are maintained through build-out of the adopted land use classifications. Policy U-60. Excess sewer capacity alone should not be sufficient grounds for challenging the existing zoning for an area. Policy U-61. Coordinate with the regional wastewater agency and adjacent jurisdictions in the planning and maintenance of regional wastewater systems in and near the City. Policy U-62. Development should be conditioned on the orderly and timely provision of sanitary sewers. Policy U-63. Coordinate with the regional wastewater agency and adjacent jurisdictions to ensure that wastewater lines passing through Renton are operated in a safe manner at all times. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 16 of 46 Policy U-64. The City of Renton will follow state guidelines that define a City's ability to assume facilities in annexation areas. Policy U-65. Areas annexed without existing municipal sanitary sewer service will be served by Renton unless a service agreement exists or is negotiated with a neighboring utility. Policy U-66. Areas annexed with existing sanitary sewer service must meet the City's sanitary sewer service objectives. Upgrading to City standards of sanitary sewer facilities within all or portions of newly annexed areas will be required if there is a threat to public health and safety. If improvements are necessary, they may be accomplished by developer installation or LID as a condition of the annexation. Policy U-67. All property owners in unincorporated King County and Renton's PAA, who are granted City sanitary sewer services, should be required to sign a covenant to annex. Policy U-68. In areas where annexation is logical, extensions of service may be contingent upon request for annexation. (See Annexation policies in the Land Use Element.) Policy U-69. Allow the extension of sanitary sewer services within the City's Potential Annexation Area according to such criteria as the City may require. Sanitary sewer services will not be established within another sewer service district, which provides sanitary sewer service except by agreement with that sewer service district. Policy U-70. The City may assume existing portions of adjacent sanitary sewer systems, at the discretion of the City Council, when such assumptions promote the logical and efficient development of the City's sanitary sewer system area. Policy U-71. The City Council will consider annexations without assumptions of existing sanitary sewer facilities under conditions defined in the Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Policy u-n. Actively promote all residents within the City to connect to public sewer. Policy U-73. Private sewage disposal systems will be allowed within the City limits, subject to city, Surface Water county, and state regulations and when public sewers are not available. Discussion: Natural hydrologic systems play an integral role in effective surface water management. Engineering techniques can control much of the storm water through detention and retention systems. However, the cumulative effects of storm water can only be managed by a combination of engineering and preservation of natural systems. Surface water can dissolve and transport toxins from the human environment as well as carrying eroded materials. Renton's municipal water supply, as well as downstream water bodies, must be protected from water-borne contaminates through prudent management practices. Existing Conditions Renton's Surface Water Utility was organized to meet specific ordinances, regulations and to ensure that planned facilities meet defined engineering standards. The Utility is operated as a self-supporting utility under the direction of the Mayor and City Council. Utility Service Area The Utility's service area currently includes all lands within the City boundaries, more than 17.2 square miles. However, surface flows from the urban area within the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and the rural area also affect the natural and constructed surface water management systems. This potential annexation area is currently serviced by King County. As areas within the PAA are annexed into the City, Renton will assume responsibility to provide surface water management services within the annexed areas. General Location of Facilities The existing surface and storm water facilities follow natural drainage patterns wherein surface water is collected and detained to reduce peak runoff rates, to provide water quality improvement, and for infiltration. Alternatively, it is conveyed through pipes to numerous surface water bodies. These surface water bodies include several creeks and rivers, and Lake Washington. The major topographic elements of the service area include several major drainage areas or basins within the city limits (see Figure 4-1). The northern-most basin is the May Creek Basin, which begins northeast of the city limits and flows to Lake Washington. The Cedar River Basin runs through the heart of downtown Renton. This basin extends far beyond the city boundaries. Thus, hydrologic events and urban growth beyond the city limits may have a significant impact upon the surface drainage system, particularly near downtown and the outfall into Lake Washington. The facilities within the city limits for these basins include storm sewers, detention facilities, open channels, and other protective works. The Black River Basin, also know as the Eastside Green River Watershed (ESGRW), is a major basin in the southwestern portion of the City. The basin encompasses approximately 24 square miles that includes areas of Kent, Tukwila, and King County. Thus, coordination with other agencies in this area is essential. The City of Renton makes up less than one third of the total basin area. The facilities within the city limits for this basin include the Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 17 of 46 Black River Pump Station, Springbrook Creek (P-l channel), storm sewers, detention facilities, open channels, and other protective works. The remaining basins within the city limits include the West Hill Basin, which drains to Lake Washington, the Lower Empire Sub-basin in the Duwamish Basin, which drains to the GreenlDuwamish River and the Soos Creek Basin. The Soos Creek Basin is primarily outside of the city limits. Basin plans for the Black River Basin, the Maplewood Sub-basin, the Cedar River Basin (with King County), and the May Creek Basin (with King County) have been completed and actions identified in these plans are being implemented. Existing Capacity of Facilities The existing surface water drainage system is meeting capacity requirements under normal conditions. However, in some areas of the City, the system has become inadequate to serve present needs during large, infrequent storm events. Of particular concern are inadequate facilities located within several basins. These basins are each affected by upstream development activities that have occurred in their respective watersheds, creating downstream capacity deficiencies. Currently there are no special efforts for floodway protection outside of the development review process and emergency responses during flooding. The City is studying frequently flooded areas including the Cedar River, North Renton, and the Black River Basin. Problems in the Black River Basin include widespread flooding or surface water ponding in the valley during severe rainfall events and the loss of outlet culvert capacity from the Panther Creek Wetlands. Existing and future surface water quality issues, loss of wetland habitat and fishery passage problems are additional concerns, with the continued development of the upstream portion of the watershed within Renton's Urban Growth Area and areas within the Cities of Kent and Tukwila. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 18 of 46 Figure 4-1 Surface Water Drainage Basins Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 19 of 46 Other areas within the City with surface water problems include much of the Downtown and Rolling Hills vicinities. Storm drain facilities in areas along SW 7th Street, near the Renton Center, and Renton Village are over capacity during severe storm events causing flooding of facilities that are undersized for current flows from their tributary uplands. North of Downtown, both the Gypsy Creek and the North Renton Basins experience flooding caused, in part, by inadequately sized pipes, ditches and detention facilities. Flooding in the Gypsy Creek Basin is associated with facilities located near an interchange ofI-405. Flooding in the lower portion of North Renton is largely caused by the system not being able to convey drainage from the Highlands neighborhood. Existing Reliability To a large extent, the reliability of the storm drainage system depends on three factors. In areas where growth has occurred, or will occur, the facilities must be designed to control the flows that are discharged from new development to pre-developed conditions (detention), and conveyance systems that are sized to convey the increased storm water runoff due to future land use conditions. Additionally the facilities require regular maintenance to prevent debris and blockage, that impair the system's ability to function properly, and routine observation to ensure they operate as designed during high flows. Thus, reliability is a function of proper sizing of storm water conveyance systems and flow control systems, along with the need for routine maintenance and replacement of these storm water management systems. City facilities in the lower reaches of several watersheds no longer meet the capacity requirements and, in some instances, may not have been maintained on a regular basis. Thus, they may not be considered reliable. As part of the Surface Water Utility System Plan, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has been developed to solve drainage problems and improve reliability. The Surface Water Utility System Plan also identifies maintenance and operation programs that are funded by the Utility to maintain public storm systems and address surface water management problems in the City. The Surface Water Utility has identified needed improvements through the basin plans. The current Surface Water Utility Six-year CIP is provided in the City Capital Improvement Program document. Surface Water Quality and Quantity Best Management Practices to be Implemented to Mitigate Future Land Use Impacts The City adopts surface water management design standards that require the implementation of storm water quantity and quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) and controls as part of the approval of a project to mitigate the project's storm and surface water impacts during and after construction. These standards include erosion and sedimentation BMPs during construction, flow control, water quality treatment, and conveyance system sizing standards to manage the quantity and quality of storm water runoff from projects. The City has adopted the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as the design standard that projects must comply with to mitigate impacts to surface water. However, as a condition of Environmental Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), projects are conditioned to comply with the standards in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual in certain parts of the City. The Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (August 2001) also provides design standards and BMPs to mitigate impacts to surface water from new and redevelopment projects. The City of Renton is a Phase 2 community under the Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. The NPDES program is intended to protect water quality from non-point source pollution from stormwater runoff. City will be required to obtain a NPDES Phase 2 stormwater permit from Ecology for its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems in 2005, once Ecology completes development of the permit. The NPDES Phase 2 stormwater program requires the implementation of the following six minimum control measures: Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 20 of 46 1. Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts 2. Public Involvement/Participation 3. lllicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control 5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment 6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations The Surface Water Utility currently implements these six minimum control measures to some degree. It is expected that the NPDES Phase 2 stormwater permit will require some expansion of these programs and the adoption of new design standards for construction projects that are equivalent to the standards in the Ecology 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The City has adopted wetland, stream buffer, steep slope, and flood hazard critical area ordinances, shoreline regulations and other development regulations that also protect surface water systems. The listing of Chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act will require additional stormwater controls and strengthening of Critical Area Ordinances, updates to development regulations, and land use changes that will further reduce future land use impacts on streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands in the City. The City currently operates a storm system maintenance program that includes cleaning catch basins, pipes and other facilities, along with a street vacuum sweeping program. The maintenance programs remove sediment and pollutants from City-owned and operated storm systems and streets, which reduces flooding and non-point source pollution from being discharged into water bodies in the City. Forecasted Conditions Future Utility Service Area The Utility's Service Area could enlarge substantially to approximately 35 square miles if the City of Renton annexes all areas within the Urban Growth Area. The areas that may be annexed are currently served by King County facilities. The City, upon annexation, would assume these facilities, their upkeep, and maintenance. General Location of Future Facilities The Renton surface and storm water system currently operates much like the gravity-based sewer system, although the destination is surface water bodies, rather than wastewater treatment plants. Storm and surface water facilities will generally remain in their current locations, although the individual sections may be replaced to convey higher flows. For new development, surface water facilities are usually constructed on a site-by-site basis, rather than on a comprehensive or system-wide basis. Storm water pipes and detention facilities will be constructed on-site during each construction project, and the off-site release rates should be limited to rates no greater than pre-development levels, per the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Most existing and new storm conveyance systems are constructed in public or private streets. Although peak flows are required to be regulated to pre-development levels, total volumes of flow will increase due to the increase in impervious area. New deVelopment may create negative downstream impacts although the development had complied with storm water controls and requirements due to the increase in runoff volume. The total volume of runoff will increase in all areas of new development, which may increase erosion and sedimentation and decrease surface water quality. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 21 of 46 The unincorporated urban area has existing storm water conveyance systems that are planned and administered by King County. The County land use plans for these areas are similar to the Renton plan. Since the King County facilities are designed with the same standards as City facilities, they function the same as City facilities. Future Capacity of Facilities Many of the existing facilities within the city limits will require modifications to increase capacity to provide adequate conveyance capacity and flow control (detention). All facilities would be sized to provide flow control and water quality treatment in accordance with the adopted city surface water design standards. Stormwater conveyance systems are required to convey storm flows from the twenty-five year or greater design storm event. New development is required to detain flows on-site in accordance with the adopted surface water design standards and to discharge the post construction runoff at rates no greater than pre-developed runoff rates. Basin plans will be prepared to determine need for and sizes of new regional drainage facilities. Several basin plans have been prepared and the City is also participating in regional salmon conservation planning within Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 8 and 9. As the City annexes new areas within unincorporated King County additional basin/sub-basin planning will be needed. In addition, the Surface Water Utility System Plan will be updated and will comprehensively define resources, standards, and programs needed to effectively manage storm and surface water runoff in the City and potential annexation areas. The anticipated increase in impervious surface in all areas will increase surface runoff and require new facilities at development sites. In addition, new development, particularly infill development, may increase surface flows beyond existing facility capacity, requiring the enlargement of facilities downstream of the development. City standards require that new development mitigate for impacts to surface water by releasing runoff from the site at a rate no greater than the pre-developed runoff rate. Also, if downstream problems exist, new development is required to perform offsite analysis to ensure that the downstream problem is not made worse by the development. Surface Water Quality Requirements in Aquifer Protection Area Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, and 2 Development projects located in either Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, or Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area (APA) are required to pass additional City review to ensure the projects do not produce water quantity and/or quality impacts that may affect the aquifer, which is used for the City's potable water supply. Areas of particular concern include areas subject to vehicular traffic or the storage of chemicals. The adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan proposes areas for development of more intensive land uses by the year 2022. This includes substantial development and redevelopment of the Downtown. Portions of this area are within Zone 1 of Renton's APA. Zone 1 requirements include closed detention facilities including wet vaults on site, and pipe conveyance systems that meet pipeline specifications to prevent infiltration of storm water from these systems. AP A Zone 2 and Zone 1 Modified requirements affect much of the northern and eastern portions of Renton. These requirements are not as stringent as Zone 1 requirements and generally require lining of conveyance system and water quality facilities to protect groundwater in areas with relatively porous soil. The AP A regulations may increase the potential surface and storm flows generated from both zones, especially in Zone 1, since infiltration systems are not allowed. The increase in runoff may require existing facilities to be enlarged to meet the increased capacity need. Objective U-F: Provide and maintain surface water management systems to minimize impacts on natural systems and to protect the public, property, surface water bodies, fish habitat, and groundwater from changes in the quantity and quality of storm water runoff due to land use changes. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 22 of 46 Policy U-74. Design stonn drainage systems to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation problems, and to preserve natural drainage systems including rivers, streams, flood plains, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Policy U-7S. Encourage the retention of natural vegetation along lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams, where appropriate, in order to help preserve water quality, protect fishery resources, and control erosion and runoff. Policy U-76. Filling, culverting, and piping of natural watercourses that are classified as streams shall not be allowed, except as needed for a public works project. In the case where a public works project requires the filling, culverting, or piping of a natural watercourse, if no other option is available, then such projects should follow specific design standards to minimize impacts to the natural watercourse. Such standards should prevent flooding and the degradation of water quality, aquatic habitat, and the effectiveness of the local natural drainage system. This would include providing mitigation to replace the lost functions provided by the natural watercourse that is filled, culverted, or piped by the public works project. Policy U-77. Promote and support public education and involvement programs that address surface water quality and other surface water management issues. Policy U-7S. Encourage the safe and appropriate use of detention and retention ponds, biofiltration swales, clean roof run-off, and groundwater recharge technologies to reduce the volume of surface water run-off, to recharge aquifers, and to support base flows in streams for aquatic resources. Solid Waste Policy U-79. Work towards protecting surface water resources and groundwater resources from pollutants entering via the stonn drainage system. Policy U-SO. Implement stonnwater standards that adequately control flow (quantity) and quality of stonnwater runoff from new and redevelopment projects to protect public health and safety, prevent property damage, prevent erosion, and protect surface water quality, groundwater quality, and fish habitat. Policy U-S1. Coordinate with adjacent cities, counties, and state and federal agencies in the development and implementation of the Clean Water Act's National Pollution Eliminating System Phase 2 Pennit for Municipal Separate Stonn Sewer Systems. Policy U-S2. Existing natural drainage, watercourses, ravines, and other similar land features should be protected from the adverse effects of erosion from increased stonn water runoff. Policy U-S3. Stonn and surface water management programs should be coordinated with adjacent local and regional jurisdictions. Discussion: These policies support the provision of adequate and safe waste handling and disposal facilities. In addition, these policies support active recycling efforts aimed at extending the life cycle of these facilities Existing Conditions Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 23 of 46 Utility Service Area Solid waste collection within the city limits is mandated by state and city code and only the City's contractor may provide such service. The City sets rates for solid waste collection, and bills all customers directly for these services. The City contracts with Waste Management-Rainier for all solid waste collection within the city limits. State law also gives Renton the authority to contract for collection of residential recyclables and yard waste. Curbside collection ofrecyclables is available to all single-family and duplex residents of the City, and onsite collection is available to all multi-family and duplex residents fourplex and above). Yard waste collection is available to all single-family and duplex residents with the exception of mobile home park residents. Yard waste collection may be available to multi-family and mobile home residents for an additional fee. Waste Management, Inc. provides collection containers for all of these programs. The recycling and yard waste collection programs are voluntary. The City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for these services. Coordination with Other Solid Waste Purveyors Through an interlocal agreement with King County, the County's disposal system handles all solid waste generated within city limits, except solid waste diverted by waste reduction or recycling activities. King County regulates the types of waste accepted at its facilities as well as the disposal rates. Renton's interlocal agreement with King County also authorizes the County to prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and to include the City in the Plan. The County achieved its 1995 goal of fifty percent (50%) waste reduction and recycling under the Plan. Renton works cooperatively with other jurisdictions in the region to implement the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (LHWMP). Participants in the LHWMP include thirty-eight (38) suburban cities, the City of Seattle, King County Solid Waste Division, King County Water and Land Division, and the Department of Public Health, Seattle-King County. The LHWMP provides a regional program to manage hazardous waste generated in small quantities by households and businesses in King County. To provide funding for the LHWMP, the City of Renton and all other solid waste and sewer service providers in King County, collect hazardous waste fees from customers through utility bills. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 24 of 46 Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 25 of 46 .Figure 5 1 SaUd Waste Faeilities Regional Solid Waste Purveyors within the City Limits The King County Solid Waste Division owns and operates the Renton Transfer Station in the 3000 block ofNE 4th Street in the Renton Highlands neighborhood. Local waste haulers and residents of unincorporated King County who haul their own waste use this facility. City residents also use this facility for disposal of large and bulky items. Due to state legislation and Washington Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC) regulations, the City does not have the authority to contract exclusively for collection of recyclable materials generated by businesses. However, a number of private companies do collect recyclables from businesses in Renton. Location and Capacity of Existing Solid Waste Facilities Figure 5 1 illustrates the location of the transfer station, landfill, and oonstruotion, demolition, and land clearing (eDL) transfer faoility There are three existing solid waste facilities within the City's Planning Area: a King County Transfer Station, the Cedar Hills Landfill, and the Black River Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Transfer Station (CDL). King County's Renton Transfer Station is located in the Renton Highlands. A majority of the solid waste generated in Renton is transported there by the City's contractor, Waste Management, Inc. A majority of the vehicles that utilize the Transfer Station are garbage trucks from waste hauling companies. Regional Disposal's Black River Transfer and Recycling Center (a Rabanco facility), located at 501 Monster Road SW, opened in late 1993. Under a contract with King County, this facility accepts construction, demolition, and land clearing waste. The facility received 89,300 tons of CDL material in 1999. There is no data on the amount of CDL processed at construction sites and hauled directly to a processor. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the amount ofCDL waste being diverted from the facility. The City of Renton recognizes that the Mt. Olivet Landfill (closed 1991) was not closed in accordance with State of Washington closure standards. Areas of deficiency include excessively steep slopes, lack of adequate capping, possible negative environmental consequences, failure to obtain an approved closure plan~ and other related deficiencies. The City continues to monitor groundwater quality in the vicinity of the landfill to assure that potential contaminants do not enter the City's drinking water aquifer. If contamination is detected, the City has contingency measures to address this problem, such as selective operation of the City's eight wells and groundwater pumping to remove contaminants. Identified areas of contamination would be monitored until the contaminants are removed. King County's Cedar Hill§. Landfill, owned and operated by the King County Solid Waste Division, and located southeast of Renton, will continue to receive all solid waste generated in the City of Renton. This facility's remaining permitted capacity is approximately 12.5 million tons (as of January 2000). At the current level of fifty percent (50%) waste reduction and recycling, Cedar Hills will be able to accept solid waste until 2012. Recyclables collected from single family, duplex, and multi-family residents in the City are taken to Waste Management, Inc.'s Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville, WA. Yard waste for single-family and duplex residents in the City is currently taken to Cedar Grove Recycling in Maple Valley. Their yearly capacity is 195,000 tons of organic material. Currently, the facility handles approximately 172,000 tons annually. Cedar Grove is permitted by the Seattle-King County Health Department to have 250,000 cubic yards of organic material onsite. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 26 of 46 The City's residential yard waste collection program has diverted increasing amounts of the residential waste stream every year, successfully diverting over 30% in 2001, and more than seven percent (7%) of the City's total waste stream annually since it began in 1989. Yard waste makes up only 0.9 percent of the remaining residential waste stream; therefore any increase in diversion would be minimal. Food waste makes up almost thirty-five percent (35%) of the residential waste stream after recyclables and yard wastes are diverted. The Solid Waste Utility implemented a pilot food waste composting program in 1994 and 1995 to assess the feasibility of diverting this material from Renton's residential waste stream. Worm compost bins were delivered to approximately 200 residents and weekly measurements were made on their waste practices. This led to a period of several years in which residents could obtain a worm bin from the city for the purpose of residential food waste composting. Reliability of Existing Solid Waste Services and Facilities The services ofthe City's solid waste and recycling collection contractor, Waste Management, Inc., have been very reliable since the inception of the program in 1989. The number of missed collections has remained consistently low. Contingency plans for collection are provided in the solid waste contract in the event of extreme weather conditions. Interruption of service due to a contract dispute is not likely because the City has completed negotiations of a new contract with Waste Management, Inc. The new contract terminates at the end of2005, but has the potential to be extended with two 2-year extension options. At this time, the capacities of the Renton Transfer Station and the Cedar Hills Landfill are sufficient, and any regulatory issues are being addressed by the appropriate agency. The capacity of the Cascade Recycling Center for processing recyclables and the capacity of Cedar Grove Recycling for composting yard wastes are both adequate to meet the City's needs. Forecasted Conditions Future Utility Service Areas The City's Solid Waste Utility will continue to provide solid waste collection to all residents and businesses within the city limits. Curbside collection of recyclables and yard waste will continue to be available to all single-family and duplex residents in Renton. Multi-family residences continue to be eligible for on-site collection ofrecyclables. Yard waste collection will continue to be offered to mobile home parks and multi- family complexes for an additional fee. When annexations take place, the franchise hauler in the annexed area has authority to collect solid waste for a period of up to seven (7) years. After seven years, the City's contractor may take over service in the annexed area. The City's contractor should be able to increase solid waste, recycling, and yard waste collection service to households and businesses as needed. Since King County has planned for both incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County, disposal facilities are anticipated to be adequate should the City annex areas of unincorporated King County. Location and Capacity of Future Facilities Currently, King County plans to keep the Renton Transfer Station operational and to install a compactor by 2012, at a cost of $4,000,000. This date coincides with the projected closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill, and will enable the facility to prepare waste for transport to a new location. Transportation of noncompacted waste costs approximately 1.5 times more than the cost of hauling compacted waste. Therefore, the installation of the Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 27 of 46 compactor should minimize any necessary rate increases caused by the greater distance between the transfer station and a new facility. King County's Final 2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan suggests that a study be made of the possibility of privatization of the transfer system. The City of Renton is concerned that this may limit market competition in the private sector. The City is also concerned that ending public ownership of transfer facilities will limit the City's influence over rates and service levels. King County's Cedar Hills Landfill is the last regional landfill located in the County. While the diversion rate by City residents has risen sharply in the past ten years (diverting 58.6 percent as of July 2001), the overall quantity of waste has also risen, and Cedar Hills is scheduled for closure in 2012. Under the 2000 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, the King County Solid Waste Division is exploring waste export possibilities. After the Cedar Hills closure, it is likely that solid waste will be exported outside the County. Waste Management, Inc. 's Cascade Recycling Center will continue to receive Renton residents' recyclables as long as the City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for collection. To increase their overall processing capacity, Waste Management Inc. has diverted paper generated in North King County and South Snohomish County from the Seattle plant to its Woodinville transfer station for processing. This change has allowed the Seattle plant to handle more recyclable material generated in South King County. The amount of yard waste collected through the City's program is not expected to increase significantly. Therefore, capacity at the Cedar Grove composting facility in the County should be sufficient to meet future needs. Coordination with Other Purveyors The interlocal agreement between the City of Renton and King County, which designates the County's disposal system for the disposal of all solid waste generated within city limits, remains in effect through June 30, 2028. Either party may request review and/or renegotiation of the agreement every five years. It is anticipated that the City will coordinate with the County to negotiate a new interlocal agreement upon the expiration of the existing agreement. Interloeal Agreements Chapter 70.95 RCW requires the County to regularly update the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (the Plan). According to the provisions of the City's interlocal agreement with King County, this update will occur every three years The City will be included in future Plan updates, and representatives of the City will continue to be involved in the Plan update process. The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (LHWMP), in which the City of Renton participates, follows a five-year update schedule as required by Chapter 70.105 RCW. The first update occurred in 1995. The City will continue to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions and agencies involved in the LHWMP to implement programs to manage hazardous wastes generated in small quantities from households and businesses in King County, including the collection of hazardous waste fees from City solid waste customers. Reliability Annexations to the City and the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill are not expected to have a significant impact on the ability of the City's contractor to provide reliable solid waste, recycling and yard waste collection services. If changes within Waste Management, Inc. affect the ability of their company to provide services to City customers, the City has the ability to renegotiate the contract, or enter into a contract with another service provider. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 28 of 46 Depending on regional regulations, the yard waste composting facility at Cedar Grove, may have problems handling significant increases in the amount of organic waste collected in the future. However, the City does not anticipate this to happen. Objective: U-G: To provide a responsible, comprehensive waste management program that includes economic efficiency, environmental sensitivity, and responsiveness to the needs of the community. The City should pursue a reduction of the overall waste stream, recycling, and long-term waste handling and disposal solutions. Policy U-84. Provide and maintain an adequate system of solid waste, recycling collection, disposal, and handling to meet existing and future needs. Policy U-8S. Coordinate with regional agencies in planning for the facilities and services necessary for solid waste collection and disposal, including the siting of regional transfer and waste handling facilities. Policy U-86. Reduction of the waste stream should be supported and promoted for all residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the city (i.e. through programs and public education including recycling, composting, re-use, and energy recovery programs that meet environmental standards). Policy U-87. Where economically feasible and legally acceptable, citywide collection of recyclable materials should be supported and promoted. Policy U-88. The proper handling and disposal of solid waste should be required to protect public health and safety. Policy U-89. Contamination of land, air, and water should be minimized or eliminated. Electrical System Existing Conditions Background Policy U-90. Coordinate with agencies in the region on educational and other programs for the safe management and disposal of hazardous household wastes. Policy U-91. Support products and practices that offer safe and effective alternatives to the use of potentially hazardous substances in order to reduce the total amount of hazardous waste. Policy U-92. Actively support the creation of markets for products made with recycled materials. Policy U-93. Actively support regionally coordinated efforts that promote producer responsibility and environmental stewardship. Three purveyors distribute electricity to and within the Renton Planning Area: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Seattle City Light (SCL), and Puget Sound Energy (PSE). BPA is the regional administrative entity of the U.S. Department of Energy. Seattle City Light is a publicly owned utility serving Seattle and environs. Puget Sound Energy is a private, investor-owned utility that provides electrical service to approximately 1 million customers in the Puget Sound region. These three utilities are part of an integrated transmission grid that connects points of production and demand and permits inter-utility exchange of power across the region. To make this possible, the various elements of the individual systems were designed to function compatibly with the facilities of other network utilities. High Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 29 of 46 capacity transmission lines also allow inter-regional and international power transfers to compensate for seasonal, region-wide variations in generation and demand. BPA owns and operates most of the major transmission lines and substations located throughout the Pacific Northwest. The agency sells transmission services on the high capacity grid to customers throughout the region. Additionally, BPA markets electricity generated by federal hydroelectric projects and the Washington Public Power Supply System. Puget Sound energy, Seattle City Light, and other utilities purchase power and transmission services from BP A as local situations warrant. Electricity is retailed to customers in the Renton Planning Area by Puget Sound Energy and, to a lesser extent, by Seattle City Light. For both utilities, the primary generation facilities are located outside their service areas. Puget Sound Energy supplements these sources with power generated and/or purchased within its greater service area. Each utility schedules electrical generation to meet anticipated local demand loads with excess production sold elsewhere on the power grid. Existing Utility Service Area Puget Sound Energy is the principal provider of electrical service within the Renton city limits, as well as most of the remainder of the Renton Planning Area. Electricity is provided to the Bryn Mawr and Skyway portions of the Renton Planning Area by SCL. Electricity is provided to the Bryn Mav.'f and Sk)"Nay portions of the Renton Planning .Area by SCL. By historical circumstanoe, Seattle also serves 10 customers within the Renton city limits. Currently, SCL and Puget Sound Energy are negotiating an agreement to transfer the facilities within the City of Renton to PSE. This action probably 'lion't occur until late 1994 at the earliest. General Location of Facilities Electrical facilities can generally be divided into generation, transmission, and distribution functions. Transmission lines are identified by voltages of 115 kilovolt (kV) and above, distribution facilities have less than 55,000 volts (55 kV), and a distribution substation transforms voltages of 115 kV or greater to feeder circuits at lower voltages of 12 or 34 kV. Within the Planning Area, BPA operates transmission facilities, Seattle City Light operates transmission and distribution facilities, and Puget Sound Energy engages in all three functions. "figure 6 1 illustrates existing and proposed electrical substations and other transmission system facilities within the Planning Area. Renton's geographic position offers a logical location for transmission routes. Five BP A transmission circuits follow the Rocky Reach-Maple Valley right-of-way, which enters the Planning Area from the east, just south of the Cedar River, and terminates at BPA's Maple Valley Substation. The lines, two 500 kV, one 345 kV, and two 230 kV, originate at BPA facilities north, south, and east of Renton. As electrical service provider to most of the Planning Area, Puget Sound Energy builds, maintains and/or operates various facilities. These include high voltage transmission lines for bulk power transfers, substations for system monitoring and control and changing of voltage levels, and lower voltage feeder lines to carry the electricity to the consumers. The high capacity lines energized at 230 kV and 115 kV feed out from the Talbot Hill Station, which receives power from the adjacent BPA Maple Valley Station. From Talbot Hill these lines carry power to other transmission stations or to distribution substations where the voltage is stepped down for entry into the feeder system. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 30 of 46 Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 31 of 46 .Figure 6 1 Eleetrieal Faeilities The portion of Renton's Planning Area currently served by Seattle City Light is small, containing only two minor distribution substations, Bryn Mawr and Skyway. Power is provided to these substations by Seattle's Creston distribution substation. In addition, several Seattle City Light rights-of-way pass through the City and the Urban Growth Area. These circuits include: • The Bothell-Renton Right-of-Way (ROW), with one of two SCL 230 kV lines currently in use and leased to Puget Sound Energy. • The Renton-Creston ROW, with six 230 kV lines. • The Cedar Falls ROW, with one 115 kV line. Capacity/Reliability of Existing System Puget Sound Energy and Seattle City Light are both capable of meeting the current electrical load in their respective service areas. Puget Sound Energy operates eleven distribution substations in the Renton Planning Area with a total nameplate capacity of 284,400 kilowatts (kW). The residential/commercial peak load utilization factor for these substations is 87.5%. SCL's Creston substation is outside the Planning Area, but supplies power within it. Creston's capacity is 106,000 kW and has a utilization factor of 81 %. The utilization factor, or the load to capacity ratio, is normally maintained in the 75% to 85% range. Leaving excess capacity under normal conditions allows a reserve for periods of extraordinary load during extreme cold weather, and for system diversity. The capacity of individual elements is not the sole consideration in evaluating an electrical system, however. Our dependence on electrical power is such that the overall grid and the constituent utilities must continue to furnish power even with the failure of individual components. Electric service interruptions are most frequently a product of extraordinary circumstances. Either an unusual load has overtaxed an element of the system or it has been weakened or removed by some external condition or event. Any such occurrence could cut off an area from the grid and/or endanger other parts of the system by a sudden transfer of power from one conductor to another of insufficient capacity. To mitigate these threats to the system, redundant lines and facilities of adequate capacity are necessary. This diversity is programmed to meet reliability criteria, which assume a failure of one or two components of a system (single or double contingency) with no loss of customers or damage to equipment. Forecasted Conditions-Electrical Forecasted increases in population would result in 135, 161 persons and 91,874 jobs, within the Planning Area, by 2010. Based on these forecasts the Renton Planning Area will have an additional load of 147.3 MY A, excluding industrial load increases, at the extreme winter peak in 2010. Industrial load additions will comprise some part of the 82.3 MVA increase that Puget Sound Energy anticipates for Renton industrial consumers by 2020. Future Capacity of Electrical Facilities Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 32 of 46 To assure system reliability and to provide the capacity necessary to accommodate the growth anticipated for the Renton Planning Area, SCL, BP A, and PSE have planned for upgrades and additions to their respective systems. Puget Sound Energy has prepared a King County Draft GMA Electrical Facilities Plan. According to this plan, the utility has several system improvements in progress within the Renton Planning Area that are necessary to serve forecasted load growth for the next thirty years. Puget Sound Energy's plans for future transmission lines, facilities, and upgrades will increase system capacity and reliability. Also proposed is the Aqua substation. This substation mayor may not be located within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, but in either case would likely serve residents both within and outside of the urban growth boundary. Existing SCL 4 kV lines are being replaced with a new 26 kV network. The Bryn Mawr and Skyway substations will no longer be needed and will be taken off-line when this upgrade is complete. Additionally, SCL has indicated the possibility of adding two 230 kV transmission lines from BPA's Covington Substation to South Seattle on existing transmission line corridors to serve load growth within the next twenty years. The BPA has plans to increase reliability by installing additional 500 kV circuits and 500 kV to 230 kV transformers. While these will benefit Renton, they are not within the Planning Area. The only project that BPA currently has planned for inside the Planning Area is a static V AR for the Maple Valley Station. This device senses increased load and signals the capacitors to release stored energy. Conservation & Demand Management Conservation is one means to reduce loads, existing or projected, on the electric system. This can delay the need for new or expanded generation and transmission facilities. System wide, Puget Sound Energy expects that conservation will yield an additional 296 average MW and 592 MW on system peak in the year 2010. Conservation programs are enacted on a utility-wide basis and regulated by the WUTC. While conservation reduces overall electrical consumption, demand-side management influences when the demand will occur. Educating consumers to modify their consumption patterns, imposing a sliding rate structure for time-of-day and for increment of energy used, or directly controlling energy use by certain customers, can all serve to spread the load throughout the day. Since electric utility systems are designed to accommodate peak loads, this method can delay the need for additional capacity. Objective U-H: Promote the availability of safe, adequate, and efficient electrical service within the City and the remainder of its Planning Area, consistent with the utility's regulatory obligation to serve. Policy U-94. The provision of electricity to the City's Planning Area should be coordinated with local and regional purveyors to ensure the availability of electricity to meet projected growth in population and employment. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 33 of 46 Policy U-95. Encourage purveyors of electrical power to make facility improvements/additions within existing electric facility corridors where appropriate. CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Natural Gas And Fuel Pipelines Existing Conditions -Natural Gas Background Natural gas is a mixture of hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon gases extracted from porous rock formations below the earth's surface. The gas makes its way from the producing fields via the interstate pipeline at high- pressures, often over one thousand pounds per square inch (psi). Colorless and odorless as it comes off the interstate pipeline, a powerful odorant, typically mercaptan, is added for safety purposes to make leaks easier to detect. Through a series of reduction valves, the gas is delivered to homes at pressures of from 0.25 to 2 psi. In recent decades, the residential popularity of natural gas has risen. Cleaner burning and less expensive than the alternatives, oil and electricity, it has become the fuel of choice in many households for cooking, drying clothes, and heating home and water. Natural Gas Utility Service Area Puget Sound Energy (formerly Puget Sound Energy) provides natural gas service to approximately 650,000 customers in the Puget Sound Region, including Renton and its Urban Growth Area. General Location of Natural Gas Facilities Puget Sound Energy operates under a franchise agreement with the City of Renton, which allows PSE to locate facilities within the public street right-of-ways. The gas distribution system consists of a network of high-pressure mains and distribution lines that convey natural gas throughout the Planning Area. Natural gas is provided to PSE by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, which operates a system extending from Canada to New Mexico. Two parallel Northwest Pipeline Corporation high-pressure mains enter the Planning Area south of Lake McDonald and terminate at the South Seattle Gate Station loeated at Talbot Road and South 22nd Street. (see Figure 7 1). PSE high-pressure mains then extend to smaller lines branching-off from the primary supply mains. Through a series of smaller lines and pressure regulators the gas is delivered to consumers. PSE also operates an underground propane storage facility!-(Figure 7 1). The main eomponents of the natural gas system are illustrated in Figure 72. Capacity of Natural Gas Facilities Although PSE serves most of Renton and its Urban Growth Area, a portion of the Planning Area, west of the Renton Municipal Airport, and straddling SR-900 is currently not served by Puget Sound Energy (refer to Figure 7 1 ). Provision of natural gas service to this area would only require extension of intermediate service lines. The capacity of the system is primarily constrained by the volume of gas entering the PSE network from the Northwest Pipeline Corporation mains. Current capacity of the South Seattle Gate Station, the point of entry for natural gas to the area, is nine million standard cubic feet per hour (scth). This can serve approximately 180,000 residential customers. The minimum pressure at which gas can be delivered is fifteen pounds per square inch (15 psi). Methods for increasing supply to a particular area include replacement of the lines, looping, installing parallel lines, and inserting higher-pressure lines into greater diameter, but lower pressure mains. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 34 of 46 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11/01104 A reserve of natural gas supply is maintained in order to respond to temporary shortfalls in the natural gas supply due to weather-driven higher demand or supply interruptions. A number of separate utilities share the facility, however, and hence it is not dedicated to the Renton Planning Area. Natural Gas System Reliability Since natural gas is chiefly used as a home heating fuel, demand rises as the outdoor temperature drops. The locally available gas supply and the capacity of PSE's delivery system may not always be sufficient to provide product to all customers during periods of exceptional demand. Therefore, PSE has several short term, load- balancing strategies. As stated previously, PSE operates a storage facility that provides a reserve of additional gas for times of shortfall. Also, some gas customers are served under an interruptible service contract. For those times when gas resources become limited, these connections can be temporarily dropped from the system. Residential customers are always granted first priority for available gas supply. Another strategy to maintain system pressure is the looping of mains. Feeding product from both ends of a pipeline decreases the possibility oflocalized pressure drops and increases system reliability. Forecasted Conditions Puget Sound Energy predicts a growth rate of 41.2% in demand for this 20.:-year planning horizon. According to this assumption, demand for gas will average 1,227,562.6 cubic feet per hour for December 2010 within th~ Renton Planning Area. PSE has stated that they will be able to accommodate this increased demand. This will be accomplished through an upgrade of the South Seattle Gate Station to allow the entry of an additional two million scth into the system, for a total capacity of eleven million scth. The backfeed from Covington will add another three million scth and, with the current peak hour feed of one million scth from Issaquah, there will be sufficient supply capacity to serve the customer base anticipated for 2010. Proposed New or Improved Facilities Figure 7 1 shows the There is one proposed high pressure main proposed required to meet the increased gas demand, which should result from the forecast growth. The ultimate placement of the line will be based on right-of-way permitting, environmental standards, coordination with other utilities .. and existing infrastructure placement. PSE has a policy to expand the supply system to serve additional customers. Gas connections are initiated by customer requests. Maximum capacity of the existing distribution system can be increased by the following methods: increasing distribution and supply pressures in existing lines, installing parallel mains, replacing existing with larger sized mains, looping mains, and adding district regulators from supply mains to provide additional intermediate pressure gas sources. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 35 of 46 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 36 of 46 .Fig.7 1 Natural Gas Faeilities CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Petroleum Fuel Pipelines Existing Conditions Utility Service Area Olympic Pipeline Company is a joint-interest company that provides a variety of fuel oil products via a system of pipelines throughout the region. The stock is held by Atlantic Richfield Corporation (Arco), Shell~ and Texaco oil companies. Olympic transports oil products from the Ferndale British Petroleum (BP) refinery, the Cherry Point Arco refinery~ and the Anacortes Shell and Texaco refineries through Renton to Seattle, Sea-Tac International Airport, and points south to Portland, Oregon. Olympic's Renton facilities function as a regional distribution hub, as well as supplying the local market with petroleum products. General Location of Fuel Product Pipelines and Other Facilities The Olympic Pipeline Company's facilities in the Renton Planning Area include a system of pipes, varying from 12 to 20 inches in diameter, and a central monitoring station at~Lind Avenue SW. Petroleum products enter Renton via two pipes from the City's northern border, and then extend south and west to the Renton Station. From here, a 12-inch main heads north, eventually intercepting the City of Seattle Skagit Transmission Line right-of-way toward Seattle. Two parallel branches also extend westward to the Green River, at which point one line heads west to Sea-Tac Airport and one turns south to serve Tacoma and beyond. Figure 7 2 ShOVlS the pipelines within the Renton Planning Area as 'Nell as Olympie's Renton Station. Renton Station is the monitoring and control center for the entire pipeline network. Here, also, oil products are transferred to trucks for distribution. Capacity of Fuel Product Pipelines and Facilities The Olympic Pipeline Company currently carries an average of approximately 270,000 barrels of product per day, varying according to the transported material. The absolute capacity of the system is over 350,000 barrels. As the primary supplier of petroleum products to Western Washington, Olympic states that system capacity is sufficient to meet current demand. Forecasted Conditions Olympic, though not directly serving City of Renton, affirms that they can and will increase the capacity of the system to accommodate a demand commensurate with the expected population and land uses anticipated by 2020 in the Renton Planning Area. Aside from laying new pipelines, options for increasing capacity include introducing drag reducing agents to the petroleum products, increasing the horsepower of the pumps, and replacing individual sections of pipe where bottlenecks tend to occur. Objective U-I: Promote the safe transport and delivery of natural gas and other fuels within the Planning Area. Policy U-96. Coordinate with local and regional purveyors of natural gas for the siting of transmission lines, distribution lines, and other facilities within the Renton Planning Area. Policy U-97. Support cost effective public programs aimed at energy conservation, efficiency, and supplementing of natural gas supplies through new technology. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 37 of 46 Policy U-98. Allow for the extension of natural gas distribution lines to and within the city limits and Urban Growth Area, provided they are consistent with development envisioned in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 38 of 46 Figure 7 1 Petroleum ProEiuet CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Policy U-99. Require that petroleum product pipelines are operated and maintained in such a manner that protects public safety, especially where Telecommunications those facilities are located in the Aquifer Protection Area. Telecommunications: Conventional Telephone, Fiber Optic Cable, Cellular Telephone, and Cable Television Existing Conditions -Conventional (Wireline/landline) Telephone Utility Service Area -Conventional Telephone Service to Renton and its Planning Area is provided by Qwest Communications, Inc (formerly US West). Qwest is an investor-owned corporation, whose holdings include companies serving regional, national, and international markets, including telephone services to 25 million customers in 14 western states. The subsidiaries include directory publishing, cellular mobile communications and paging, personal communications networks, cable television, business communications systems sales and service, communications software, and financial services. All cities within the State of Washington fall within a particular Local Access and Transport Area (LATA). These LATAs are telephone exchange areas that define the area in which Qwest is permitted to transport telecommunications traffic. There are 94 exchanges within Washington where Qwest provides dial tone and other local services to customers. General Location of Conventional Telephone Facilities Telephone service systems within Renton and its Planning Area include switching stations, trunk lines, and distribution lines. Switching stations, also called "Central Offices" (COs), switch calls within and between line exchange groupings. These groupings are addressed uniquely by an area code and the first three digits of a telephone number. Each line grouping can carry up to 10,000 numbers. Renton has 14 of these groupings. +fie CO serving Renton is loeated in a building on 3rd Avenue South within do,,'mto\1.'Il Renton. Four main "feeder" cable routes generally extend from each CO, heading to the north, south, east, and west (Figure 8 l).~ Connected to these main feeder routes are branch feeder routes. The branch feeder routes connect with thousands of local loops that provide dial tone to every subscriber. These facilities may be aerial or buried, copper or fiber. Local loops can be used for voice or data transmission (such as facsimile machines or computer modems). A variety of technologies are utilized including electronics, digital transmission, fiber optics, and other means to provide multiple voice/data paths over a single wire. Methods of construction are determined by costs and local regulations. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 39 of 46 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 40 of 46 _Figure 8 1 U.S. West Telepli90e Faeilities CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Capacity of Conventional Telephone Facilities Capacity of a CO is a function of the type of switch employed. Advances in technology and the use of digital transmission provide for increases in switch capacity to meet growth. Reliability of the Conventional Telephone System Telephone service is very reliable with the exception of extraordinary circumstances such as severe weather events or natural disasters. In many cases, the system may still be operational, but the volume of calls being placed to and from the affected area creates shortfalls in service. In Renton, the Inauguration Day windstorm of January 1993 resulted in some system outages. Generally, following a catastrophic event, public telephone systems would be restored before service to individuals and businesses. Forecasted Conditions-Conventional Telephone Forecasted Capacity of Conventional Telephone Facilities Ample capacity exists in the Renton CO to accommodate growth projected in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Recent technological advancements have resulted in consolidation of equipment at the Renton CO. Several additional floors are available in the building housing the CO for future expansion of the system. Line facilities within the Planning Area would require some upgrading, but no new buildings would be needed to meet proj ected growth. Regulations governing telecommunications require that the purveyor provide adequate telecommunication service on demand. Upgrading facilities and constructing new facilities accommodate growth. New technology is employed to enhance service, when available and practical. Enhancements necessary to maintain adequate capacity are determined through regular evaluation of the system. Qwest has confirmed that they will be able to extend timely service to all current and new subscribers anticipated in the population forecasts for the Renton Planning Area. Existing Conditions -Fiber Optic Telecommunication systems Utility Service Area -Fiber Optic Telecommunications The Starcom Service Corporation, a Washington corporation of the Canadian Starcom International Optics Corporation of Vancouver, B.C. plans to locate facilities within the City of Renton Planning Area. The system is a "carriers carrier" and is not intended to connect with individual users in the City of Renton. Services are to be leased to other telecommunications purveyors. The cable based telecommunications system will provide a telecommunication link between Vancouver B.C. and Seattle. General Location of Existing Fiber Optic Telecommunications Facilities As of this writing, no Starcom fiber optic facilities are in place in Renton. However, the company is currently engaged in the permitting required to bury cable within the 100 foot wide Burlington Northern Railroad right- of-way, about four feet below ground. The line generally follows the eastern shore of Lake Washington from the northern city limits to the Boeing facility, and then roughly parallels 1-405 until it intersects with 1-5. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 41 of 46 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Forecasted Conditions-Fiber Optic Telecommunications Systems Forecasted Capacity of Fiber Optic Telecommunications Facilities According to Starcom, the proposed fiber optic cable and latest technology regenerative equipment will provide capacity to meet growth envisioned in the City's Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Conditions -Cellular Telephone Background -Cellular Telephone Cellular system technology works on the principle of reusing radio frequencies. The same radio frequency can be reused as long as service areas do not overlap. In this way, shorter antennas can be used and located on top of existing structures, rather than constructing freestanding towers. Siting of cellular facilities depends on how the system is configured. The cell sites must be designed so that channels can be reused, because the FCC allocates a limited number of channels to the cellular telephone industry. As cell sites were initially developed, a few large cells were established using hilltops or tall buildings to site transmission and receiving antennas. This allowed for maximum coverage of the large cell. Clusters of smaller cells have since replaced the larger configuration, diminishing the need for larger antennas. Thus, shorter antennas and poles provide coverage for the smaller cell sites. This division of cells will continue to occur as the demand for cellular service grows. Eventually, cell sites will be placed less than two miles apart with antennas situated on poles about 60-feet high, or the height of a four-story building. Cell sites are located within the center of an area defined by a grid system. Topography and other built features can affect signal transmission, so the cell is configured to locate the cell site at an appropriate place to provide the best transmission/reception conditions. Sub-cells are sometimes created because natural features such as lakes, highways or inaccessible locations prevent siting within the necessary one-mile radius from the ideal grid point. Preferred cell site locations include: existing broadcast or communications towers, water towers, high rise buildings, vacant open land appropriately zoned that could be leased or purchased, and areas with low population densities to diminish aesthetic impacts. When new antenna structures are required for the cell site, monopoles or lattice structures are often utilized. Monopoles generally range in height from 60 feet to 150 feet. The base of the monopole varies between 40 to 72 inches in diameter. Monopoles are generally more aesthetically acceptable, but changes in the system such as lowering of antennas are not possible without major changes. Lattice structures are either stabilized by guy wires or self-supported. Generally, the maximum height of a lattice structure is limited to between 200 and 250 feet. Guyed towers can be built to accommodate a greater height, but the guy wires can pose navigational problems to migrating birds and aircraft. In addition, the taller towers often are perceived to have more severe aesthetic impacts. All structures require that a six to eight foot separation occur between antennas for signal reception. This is termed "system diversity" and is needed on the reception antennas in order to receive an optimal signal from the mobile telephone. Utility Service Area -Cellular Telephone Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 42 of 46 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Cellular telephone service is licensed by the FCC for operation in Metropolitan Service Areas (MSA) and Rural Service Areas (RSA). The FCC grants two licenses within each service area. One of those licenses is reserved for the local exchange telephone company (also referred to as the wireline carrier). Qwest Cellular (NewVector) holds the wireline licenses in the Tacoma, Seattle, Bellingham, and Spokane MSA. The non-wire line licenses in these areas, and also in the Yakima MSA is held by McCaw Cellular Communications (Cellular One). Recently, Cellular One merged with AT&T. Existing Capacity of Cellular Telephone Facilities Forecasting for cellular facilities is accomplished using a two-year horizon. Information regarding current and future predicted number of subscribers is considered by the purveyors to be proprietary, and no data was furnished in this regard. However, statewide customer counts total approximately 250,000, with the number anticipated to increase to several million by the year 2010. It is predicted that by the period covering the years 2005 to 2010, approximately twenty percent (20%) of the population in Washington State will be served. Reliability of Cellular Telephone Facilities Cellular communications are considered to be more reliable than conventional telephone systems because they can continue to operate during electrical power outages. Each cell site is equipped with a back-up power supply, either a battery or generator, or combination of the two. Severe weather events or natural disaster conditions have validated the use of cellular telephones on numerous occasions throughout the country. When conventional telephone systems fail, or telephone lines are jammed, cellular calls have a better chance of being completed. Forecasted Conditions-Cellular Telephone Future Capacity of Cellular Telephone Facilities As previously stated, forecasting for new cellular facilities uses a relatively narrow time frame of two years. Expansion is demand driven. Raising the density of transmission/reception equipment to accommodate additional subscribers, cell splitting, follows rather than precedes increases in local system load. Therefore, cellular companies must maintain a short response time and a tight planning horizon. Existing Conditions -Cable Television Background -Cable Television Cable television or CATV (Community Antenna Television) originated with small-scale attempts to obtain a clear television signal in areas too remote or too obstructed to receive one via the airways. Dating from the 1940s, the early systems were constructed of surplus wiring and basic electronic hardware. Subsequent technological innovations in signal transmission have increased the number of available channels and permitted the emergence of new players in the television broadcast industry. The multiplicity of channels and the ability to direct the signal to specific addresses have opened up both niche and global markets to information and entertainment purveyors. In addition to the provisions of cable television services, advancements in technology have allowed the current purveyor to provide high speed access to Internet services with the provision of additional features expected as market demands dictate. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 43 of 46 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 44 of 46 _FiguFe.82 PFol)osed FibeFoptie Cable CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Utility Service Area -Cable Television The current purveyor holds a cable television franchise to serve the City of Renton. The service area includes the entire incorporated area of the City, expanding with annexations. All residential neighborhoods within the City are currently served. Service is still unavailable in some commercial areas due to market conditions, which presently preclude line extension. General Description and Location of Cable Television Facilities The current purveyor's facilities supplying Renton with cable television service are composed of a receiver, a headend, a trunk system and a feeder system. The receiver and the headend, which amplifies, processes and combines signals for distribution by the cable network, are located north of Burien, Washington. The signal is then transmitted via low-power microwave to a site in Kent, Washington, where it enters the trunk system. Amplifiers placed at intervals along the cables maintain signal strength. The amplifiers also serve as junction points where the feeder system taps into the trunk cables. Service drops then provide the final connection from the feeder line to the subscriber. Generally following street rights-of-way, the present network encompasses residential neighborhoods to the east, north, and south. The unserved portion of Renton generally includes the commercial and industrial areas located in the Green River Valley. Capacity of Cable Television Facilities A cable system is not subject to the same capacity constraints as other utilities. Providing and maintaining the capacity to serve is the contractual responsibility of the utility. According to the City's franchise agreement, the purveyor must make service available to all portions of the franchise area. In some circumstances, costs associated with a line extension may be borne by the service recipient. The current purveyor offers various packages including as many as 130+ active analog and digital television channels plus nearly 40 digital music channels, and has the capacity to greatly increase those numbers as well as the other types of services that they may decide to offer in the future. Forecasted Conditions-Cable Television According to the provisions of the current purveyor's franchise agreement with the City, the company must continue to make cable service available upon request, when reasonable, for any property within the current or future city limits. Therefore, under the current terms of this franchise, the current purveyor would be required to provide cable service to projected growth within the City and the remainder of the Planning Area. Objective U-J: Promote the timely and orderly expansion of all forms of telecommunications services within the City and the remainder of its Planning Area. Policy U-lOO. Require that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-lOl. Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish aesthetic impacts, and be Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 45 of 46 collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical. Policy U-102. Pursue the continued development of a wireless Internet communication grid throughout the City for the use and enjoyment of Renton residents, employees, and visitors. CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT 11101104 Policy U-I03. Encourage healthy competition among telecommunication systems for provision of current and future telecommunication services. Utilities Element Redline.doc Page 46 of 46 #2005-T -3, Review narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary. Housekeeping text amendments to check and correct names of agencies and programs. Staff updated the Comprehensive Plan Glossary during the 2004 update, removing definitions of terms no longer used in the Plan and adding new terms. There are a few terms used in the Comprehensive Plan that do not have a glossary entry. Adding a handful of definitions will assist the reader in understanding the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Glossary Definitions Added buildable lands analysis (BLA): a Washington State law that requires six Washington counties to determine the amount ofland suitable for urban development, and evaluate its capacity for growth, based upon measurement of five years of actual development activity. King County (and five others) must report the results of the buildable lands analysis to the state every five years. commute trip reduction (CTR): a Washington State law requiring counties with a population greater than 150,000 to implement a plan to reduce single occupant commute trips and number of commute trip vehicle miles traveled per employee by employees of major public and private sector employers. The plan is developed in cooperation with local transit agencies, regional transportation planning organizations, major employers, and the owners of and employers at major worksites. linear parks: parks which are long and narrow, and follow a natural or man-made corridor such as a road or stream course. master plan: a plan that shows how proposed development will comply with the development standards in the applicable zoning. It also is intended to show compatibility of development within the Master Plan, and compatibility of anticipated uses in areas adjacent to and abutting the Master Plan area. It provides long-term guidance for a smaller area than a Conceptual Plan, but a larger area than a detailed Site Plan. platting: essentially a map of a piece ofland which shows the location, boundaries, area, detail oflot boundaries, proposed streets, utilities, public areas, and all other necessary data to demonstrate compliance with subdivision regulations; state statutes provide for the recording of plats, and the selling of lots or parcels of land by referring to the recorded plat. It is usually unlawful to sell land by refelTing to an unrecorded plat. residential use: any land use that provides for living space. Examples include artist studio/dwelling, boarding house, caretaker's quarters. single family, multi-family, special residence, floating homes, and mobile home park. transportation demand management (TDM): a system for reducing traffic congestion and provide multi-modal transpoltation opportunities. Implemented in Washington State through the Commute Trip Reduction law. See Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) definition. transportation improvement program (TIP): a plan adopted by a jurisdiction that details the priority for improvements to the transportation system related infrastructure and the means and methods of financing those improvements. Glossary Revisions.DOC Page 1 of 1 #2005-T -4, Amend the maps and language referring to Commercial Business Districts for clarity. Staff has been working on a code amendment to allow limited types of residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. This code amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Commercial Corridors. However, in the process of producing the necessary code changes, it became apparent that corrections needed to be made to the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the terminology used to refer to the specific "Business District" portions of the Commercial Corridor. In addition to a change in nomenclature, the associated maps defining the Business Districts need to be corrected. These corrections should simplify the application of the development regulations in the Business Districts, which in turn ensures greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Adopted 11101104 Comprehensive Plan Corridor Commercial Policies Proposed Text Amendments 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 east of 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. Policy LU-38S. The policies ofthe 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. 1 Adopted 11101104 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 oflocal 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 extend from west of Monroe Ave NE to 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: 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. Puget Corridor Discussion: The Puget Corridor is a commercial area along a busy arterial, bordered by multifamilv development. It features a mix ofretail, office. and service uses. Objective LU-VVV: A special commercial area should be designated along South Pugct Drive. The purpose of this area would be to enhance the commercial environment to increase revenue of local businesses and the City's tax base. 2 Adopted 11101104 Policy LU-406. Within the Puget Corridor, the "Business District" should and extend from the intersection ofPuget Drive and Benson Road S to the 1-405 overpass. Policy LU-407. The policies of the Commercial Con-idol" designation and the Puget Business District should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning. Policy LU-40B. Due to its location at a key entrance to the City from the south, the Puget Business District should include gateway features. Automall (map) NE Sunset Blvd Business District (revised map) NE 4th Business District (revised map) Rainier Business District (map) Puget Business District (map) COMMERCIAL/OFFICEIRESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The CommerciallOfficelResidential (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-¥¥¥WW\V: Development at CommerciallOfficelResidential 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-4QM07. Designate CommerciallOfficelResidential 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. 3 Adopted 11/01104 Policy LU-4U+408. Consistent with the locational criteria, CommerciallOfficelResidential 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-408409. Uses in CommerciallOfficelResidential designations should include mixed-use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, cultural facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and development facilities; and corporate headquarters. Policy LU-4G9410. 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-4W4l1. Commercial development, excluding big-box, may be a primary use in a CommerciallOfficelResidential 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. Policy LU-4H412. Individual properties may have a single use if they can be developed at the scale and intensity envisioned for the designation CommerciallOfficelResidential project, or if proposed as part of a phased development and multi-parcel proposal that includes a mix of uses. Policy LU-4l-2413. Structured parking should be required. Iflack 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-4H414. 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-4l4415. Private/public partnerships should be encouraged to provide infrastructure development, transportation facilities, public uses, and amenities. Policy LU-4t-S416. Adjacent properties within a designated COR should be combined for master planning purposes and public review regardless of ownership. Policy LU-4l-6417. Master plans should coordinate the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of 4 Adopted 11/01104 gateway features, signs, circulation, transit opportunities, and phasing regardless of ownership of individual parcels. Policy LU-4l-+418. 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-4l8419. CommerciallOfficelResidential master plans should be guided by design criteria specific to the location, context, and scale ofthe 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-4l-9420. Internally, CommerciallOfficelResidential developments should be primarily pedestrian-oriented. Internal site circulation of vehicles should be separated from pedestrians wherever feasible by dedicated walkways. Policy LU-G0421. 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-G1422. CommerciallOfficelResidential developments should have a combination of internal and external site design features, such as: 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. COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of 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-'\'W\\'XXX: Commercial Neighborhood designated areas are intended to reduce traffic volumes, permit small-scale business uses, such as commerciallretail, professional office, and services that serve the personal needs of the immediate population in surrounding neighborhoods. 5 Adopted 11101104 Policy LU-4n423. The Commercial Neighborhood designation should be implemented by Commercial Neighborhood zoning. Policy LU-G-J424. 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-424425. Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should not increase in scale or size to the point of changing the character ofthe nearby residential neighborhood. Policy LU-42M26. 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-4U427. 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-42+42S. Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should consist primarily of retail and/or service uses. Policy LU-G-8429. 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-G9430. 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. Policy LU-4J0431. Commercial structures in Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should be compatible with nearby residential areas in height, front yard setbacks, lot coverage, building design, and use. 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 6 Adopted 11101104 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~YYY: 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-4M432. 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-432433. 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~34. Encourage flexibility in use and reuse of existing, conforming structures to allow business to evolve in response to market and production requirements. Policy LU-434435. Support location of commercial and service uses in proximity to office or industrial uses to develop nodes of employment supported by services. Objective LU-¥¥¥ZZZ: Promote the development oflow 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. Policy LU-4JM36. 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 7 Adopted 11101104 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-ZZZAAAA: 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-436437. The primary use in the Employment Area -Industrial designation should be industrial. Policy LU-4J.+438. A mix of offices, light industrial, warehousing, and manufacturing should be encouraged in the Employment Area-Industrial classification, with conditions as appropriate. Policy LU~39. Industrial uses with a synergistic relationship should be encouraged to locate in close proximity to one another. Policy LU-439440. 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-44G441. 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. Policy LU-44l442. 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-442443. 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-44M44. Light industrial uses that result in noise or odors, should be located in the Employment Area-Industrial designation. 8 Adopted 11101104 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 lAn",-A"BBBB: 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-444445. 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-44§446. Non-employment-based uses, such as residential, are prohibited in the Employment Area Valley. Policy LU-44M47. 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-44f448. 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-448449. 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. Policy LU-449450. 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 BBBBCCCC: Provide flexibility in the regulatory processes by allowing a variety of zoning designations in the Employment Area-Valley designation. Policy LU-4SQ451. 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. 9 Adopted 11101104 Policy LU-4St-452. 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 ofl-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~53. Zoning supporting industrial uses should be established when a mix or wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site. Policy LU-453454. 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-454455. 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 1- 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-CCCCODOD: Ensure quality development in Employment Area-Valley Policy LU-~56. 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-4S6457. Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged. Incentives should be offered to encourage shared parking. Policy LU~58. 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-4S8459. 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~60. New development, or site redevelopment, should conform to development standards that include scale of building, building fa9ade treatment to reduce perception of bulk, relationship between buildings, and landscaping. 10 enton Village PI Puget Business District e --....Jo 1n.1op ... t. NeIc ............ • Stntepc ....... . ~ .... -. ...-- \ \ Q) o .... § ~ NE 2nd St NE 4th Street Business Distrct. e I ....... Dne1~_'" M ..... Hr ...... • Itrat.p. rt.aaia. -1ft ~.-& •• ~_IOOI f /~ +oJ () ·c +oJ en .-0 en en Q) c .-en ::J m -of >~ -, cn r .. +oJ 1 <1>1 (/) if c l~ ::J 1 I -' CI) 1 J w .. O~ z{i) #2005-T -5, Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Vision. Additional narrative is added to the Comprehensive Plan Vision to reflect changes made in the 2005-2006 City of Renton adopted Business Plan. Revised 8/31/05 Vision The Vision for the City is simply stated -"Renton -The center of opportunity in the Puget Sound Region where businesses and families thrive." These few words are intended to provide a representation of how the City views itself at the present time and into the future. The words communicate both truths about and hopes for the City of Renton. The Vision words stand for much more - • A community that is healthy and safe, that has cohesive, well-established neighborhoods and a growing diversity of housing to match the diversity of the population with its various needs and wants • A working town with a full spectrum of employment opportunities for all economic segments, regardless of education, age, gender, or ethnic origin • A regional center for active and passive recreation that features access for all to a healthy river, a clean lake, and clear mountain views to enhance the experience Renton has a city government, business community, and citizens infused with a passionate belief that it is the best place to be. They also have the will, desire, and resources to nurture the qualities that make it that and to make it even better in the future. That is the Vision. The Renton Mission states, unequivocally, the responsibility of the City, "in partnership with residents, businesses, and schools" to take the steps necessary to fulfill the Vision. These include: • Providing a healthy, welcoming atmosphere where citizens choose to live, raise families, and take pride in their community, • Promoting planned growth and economic vitality, • Creating a positive work environment, and • Meeting service demands through innovation and commitment to excellence. The Business Plan Goals, with the Vision and Mission, form the basis for City objectives and policies. The Goals are adopted annually by the City Council. Each year objectives and implementing policies ofthe Comprehensive Plan are checked against current goals and objectives. The resulting adjustments are formed into annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Current policies of the Comprehensive Plan direct future growth to the Urban Center, the core of an economically healthy, working city, and to mixed-use areas created outside of the downtown. Although densities of development are based on user preference and market factors, policies encourage maximum land efficiency, even outside the Urban H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Current Adopted\Final2004 Update (Comp Plan)\02. Vision.docII-1 Revised 8/31105 Center, and strive for development that is more intense than typical "suburban" prototypes. Ideally, the mixed-use areas will result in a reduction of transportation impacts within the City by allowing residents to work and shop close to where they live, in both new and well-established neighborhoods, thereby providing alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, and maintaining a balance between parking supply and demand. To further the goal of a balance between single-and multi-family housing, there is an objective to increase the supply of single-family housing through infill development. Some of this single-family infill will occur in newly annexed areas of the City, as a way to meet the desired single/multi-family housing mix and provide efficient urban services. There is, however, a corresponding objective to restrict expansion of traditional multi- family housing in outlying areas and channel mixed-use/multi-family into the downtown, South Lake Washington, and the Highlands. By this means, sufficient land capacity to accommodate future growth, including Renton's share of projected regional housing needs, will be ensured while maintaining the quality of life in both new and established neighborhoods. A significant characteristic of the neighborhoods of Renton is their multi-level diversity. Most neighborhoods include households that vary from one another in age range or generation, economic level, and place of origin or nationality. In order to respect and protect this quality, the City must allow for a full range of housing types to accommodate the diverse population, from larger, "move up" homes to smaller scale single-family, multi-family, and condominium developments, as well as to traditional single-family houses. A goal is to enhance the present character of the City and improve the quality of life. This must be done on several levels. On a community level, City policies support activities that strengthen neighborhood cohesiveness. The energy of a neighborhood that strives for a greater "sense of community" by meeting and working together can lead to amenities that make the area more attractive or improve its function as a neighborhood center. On a project level, a high standard of design is a function of development standards. On the broadest level, the City policies ensure that urbanization, economic development, and natural area protection are balanced. The unique setting ofthe City of Renton was recognized as "advantageous" from its earliest days. Its situation on the shore of Lake Washington, its hilltop views of the expanses of the lake, Mt. Rainier, the Cascades and Olympic Mountains, tree shrouded slopes, natural wildlife corridors, valley neighborhoods, and the clear water of the Cedar River and the many creeks and streams that run through the City are deeply appreciated by its residents. There is an abiding commitment to protect, restore, and enhance environmental quality within the City. Likewise, there is a desire to ensure quality parks H:\EDNSP\Comp PJan\Current Adopted\FinaJ2004 Update (Comp PJan)\02. Vision.docII-2 Revised 8/31105 and adequate open space within this environment to meet the recreational needs of residents. It is understood that, with other factors, the quality of the environment is dependent on the reliability and efficiency of existing utility systems, in order to protect-the public health and safety and minimize impacts. High levels of service are maintained, while the cost of implementation is shared in an equitable manner. Basic to Renton's Vision is the concept that urban living provides both choice and balanced opportunities for residents; employment and housing, recreation and religion, goods and services, all available in the community. To this end, the City has a responsibility to ensure availability of adequate land capacity so that both the employment and economic base can be expanded and diversified. Policies encourage expansion of development in the Valley and redevelopment within the Urban Center to broaden the City's employment and economic base. Fundamental to the Vision is a revitalized Downtown Core, within the Urban Center, that functions as a living / working / entertainment area for both tIi~ community as a whole and for a "24 hour Downtown population." The City will continue to work to bring a balance of uses, consisting of retail and other commercial, office, light industrial, and residential into the Downtown. Redevelopment of the south Lake Washington neighborhood, within the "Urban Center - North," will contribute to the renewed vitality of the Downtown Core. The Urban Center- North, used for heavy industrial manufacturing and associated parking for more than 60 years, offers the potential for an expanded Urban Center that will become a regional focus. The City of Renton's Vision is ambitious and far-sighted. It is the underlying structure for policies that strengthen the character of a City that entered its second century with renewed energy, ready to capitalize on fresh opportunities. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Current Adopted\Final2004 Update (Comp Plan)\02. Vision.docII-3 Amendment #1 1. Refinement of Residential Low Density mapping and implementing zoning citywide. This review will evaluate the currently mapped Residential Low Density Designations, except the East Renton Plateau and 95th Way P AA areas reviewed in 2004. The analysis will also include several Single Family Residential mapped areas that have a significant percentage of critical areas and/or existing patterns of development consistent with the new R-4 zoning standards. The review process will evaluate whether Resource Conservation (RC,) Residential-1 (R-1), or Residential- 4(R-4) zoning is appropriate for these sites. The review will also consider whether the City continues to need the Resource Conservation zone to meet its objectives for preservation of critical areas and major public open space and critical areas holdings such as the wetlands mitigation bank in the Valley. Residential Low Density Figure 1: Vicinity Map o 4000 8000 Fe:' DC c; H::; t c: c: :c;: =:c ~l;:~:;~:::o;::;: ~:: cc: QC:: :~ 1 : 48000 Amendment #2 2. North Quendall P AA. This amendment will evaluate whether to add a small strip of unincorporated King County located along Lake Washington north of Pt. Quendall and adjacent to 1-405 into Renton's Potential annexation Area. This area is currently not designated within any city's P AA and cannot be annexed. LAKEWASfDNGTON-- North Quendall PM o 1000 2000 Figure 1: Vicinity Map ~ c JC: co,: C JOe ta:::: ~:::: cit ~c: c::: cc ~c: c c: c:;;:: go:, 1 : 12000 Amendment Number 3 and Number 4 3. West Hill or portions of West Hill. This is study to evaluate potential boundaries for an expansion of the PAA into the West Hill area. 4. Review of Renton's existing Potential Annexation Area mapping to consider whether any boundary adjustments are needed. West Hill and PAA Figure 1: Vicinity Map e ~conomic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + am + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G. Del Rosario '1'0 14 January 2005 o 6000 12000 1 : 72000 Amendment #5. Review of the Urban Growth Boundary to reflect changes made by King County during its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. King County modified the UGB to include the Renton Christian Center within the Urban Area. Renton's Comprehensive Plan Map and PAA boundary need to be amended to be consistent with this action. Renton Christian Center o 1000 2000 Figure 1: Vicinity Map rcc:ilcccccccctc:~c:c:c:::=lc:c;c::c:c:;::cc:~ 1 : 12000 Amendment #6. Review of Single Family land use designations south of the Airport and north of the Center Downtown designation to evaluate zoning alternatives for improving consistency with the Airport Compatible Land Use Plan. A private property owner OJ. Harper filed an amendment request for a portion of this area. N 6th St. South Tobin Street Residential Figure 1: Vicinity Map o 600 1200 ~::c=:cc:a:ctu:c:ac:JCj::c::;:a:ccc:::g::::"!4 1 : 7200 Amendment #7. Re-designation of the Southport site from Commercial Office Residential Land Use to Urban Center-North Land Use and inclusion of Southport in the Urban Center designation. This CPA will evaluate whether it is advisable to expand the Urban Center to include Southport and whether Southport is best re-developed as part of the Urban Center with UC-N zoning. Southport Figure 1: Vicinity Map e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + am + Alex Pietsch~ Administrator ~ G. Del Rosano N'f9 14 January 2005 1500 3000 1 : 18000 I , Amendment #8. Re-designation of the Maplewood Addition and Maplewood Glen residential areas from Single Family Residential to Residential Low Density. Both of these neighborhoods are contiguous to Residential Low Density Designations. The Maplewood plats are built out neighborhoods without significant opportunity to absorb infill development due to existing lot sizes below 8,000 square feet. In the case of the Maplewood Addition, the few larger parcels are located within a flood plain and are highly constrained. This amendment will evaluate whether the Residential Low Density Designation with R-4 implementing zoning is more appropriate for these residential areas NE 2nd St o 600 1200 ~cm""mJ;"::":mmc:c,:c:;c::~ 1 : 7200 ---,-------------------------- Maplewood Addition Figure 1: Vicinity Map o 600 1200 f on d co, ~ ~ d c § tee: c: c: c c c c *@d;=c=ce=o:cc =0 ~ = g Q cec co cc, 1 : 7200 Amendment 9. 1-405-Cedar River trail. This amendment is a technical correction to the land use map rectifying the designation of a remnant parcel from Commercial Office residential to Residential Low Density. This application is continued from 2003. APPLICATION 2003-M-03, LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE DESIGNATION FROM CENTER OFFICE RESIDENTIAL (COR) TO RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) OWNER: WSDOT APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON DESCRIPTION The proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of a small 21,000 square foot parcel owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation from Center Office Residential (COR) to Residential Rural (RR). The subject site is located just east of the 1-405 right-of-way and south of the Cedar River. The site was rezoned from the Public Use (P-l) Zone to the Resource Conservation (RC) Zone in early 2002. ISSUE SUMMARY • Technical correction to reconcile the difference between the Zoning Map as adopted by Council action and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Approve this City initiated Land Use Map redesignation from COR to RR. No change is zoning is necessary with this action. BACKGROUND The site abuts COR designated and zoned properties to the north and across the Cedar River. On the south it abuts RR designated properties zoned RC. The remnant site is primarily an access road connecting the west side of the 1-405 freeway to the former NARCO brick manufacturing plant site to the east that has now been acquired by the City for future recreational uses. The site was one of a number of remnant Public Use (P-l) zoned parcels that were rezoned in 2001 and 2002 to the City's more traditional zones by the City'S Hearing Examer during the P-l rezone process. Given the site's Land Use Map designation of COR, staff recommended zoning it to COR to be consistent with this designation. Staff also recommended doing a CPA map change and rezone this year to change it to the RR designation with RC zoning. The Hearing Examiner ignored staff's recommendation and rezoned the subject 21,000 square foot site to RC, earlier this year. The City Council concurred and approved the rezone to RC. As a consequence, the rezone is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of COR. It is now necessary to make this map amendment so that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning are concurrent with one another. ANALYSIS This small parcel may have been incorrectly designated COR in the first place since it is primarily roadway, and is separated from the larger COR zoned properties to the north, by the Cedar River. Although the COR zone has no minimum lot size it seems somewhat incongruent to have designated this area for mixed-use commercial, office and/or residential development here. Because the site is so small and constrained, it is unlikely that any development will occur here, let alone a mixed-use development. The site could function as part of a mixed-use office, commercial or residential development if it were physically tied to the properties to the north across the river. Since a physical connection is unlikely staff believes it makes more sense to redesignate the site consistent with the abutting properties to its south and east. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2003\M2003-M-03 WSD01\2002-M-03 Issue Paper.doc2002-M-03 Issue Paper.doc\ CAPACITY ANALYSIS Below is the calculated theoretical capacity for the subject site assuming COR zoning with residential use and RC zoning. It should be noted that given the site's size no development is likely unless it is tied in with other properties in the future. Capacity based upon .48 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE 1.0 unit The following objective and policy are the most relevant of those listed in the Residential Rural sub- element: Objective LU-1. Preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network or agricultural lands within the City. Policy LU-32. Residential Rural areas may be incorporated into community separators. As noted above the subject site is unlikely to develop and abuts an area currently designated RR and part of a city and county regional open space network. This designation minimizes impacts to the adjacent Cedar River as well and is more appropriate for this site than the current COR designation which is intended to provide for "large-scale office, retail and/or multi-family projects developed through a master plan incorporating significant site amenities and/or gateway features." AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA RMC 4-9-020, Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process requires that a proposal demonstrate that the requested amendment is timely and meets at least one of the following: A. Review Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments: 1. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, or 2. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council, or 3. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies, or 4. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. The proposed redesignation from COR to RR appears to the support the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement under Future Open Space and Parks. "Throughout the City, and extending beyond the City boundaries, would be continuous corridors of green blending into outlying rural areas. The corridors would form a network of public and private open space running through and around the City and its neighborhoods, and providing separation between more dense urban areas. " H:\EDNSP\Comp PIan\Amendments\2003\M2003-M-03 WSOOruOO2-M-03 Issue Paper.doc2002-M-03 Issue Paper.doc\ "Some of the network would be land that is protected from extensive development to protect sensitive area; such as steep slopes, wetland and stream corridors. Some would be publicly owned park land. Some of the network would also include low density "rural" residential areas which would be boundaries between urban areas or neighborhoods, be environmentally sensitive, or have special scenic value. " This minor site is at the western tip of a much larger RR designated open space corridor of hillsides and open space extending from the heart of the City beyond its easternmost city limits toward Fairwood and Maple Valley. The future use of the site as access to the recreational complex planned to the east is consistent with the vision and purpose of the RR designation. ZONING CONCURRENCY A concurrent rezone is not required in light of the current zoning on the subject site. CONCLUSION Given its size, location, and current use, the site will probably never develop. Its current COR land use designation appears to be a mapping error given the site's isolation from the larger properties across the Cedar River to the north that also have this designation and the fact that this designation "provides for large-scale office, retail and/or multi-family projects developed through a master plan". The RR designation, on the other hand, is intended to preserve open space and protect environmentally sensitive areas identified as part of a citywide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within the City. Because this site is at the western tip of such an existing open space corridor running east along the south side of the Cedar River that has this designation, RR is the most logical land use designation for this small remnant site. H:\EDNSP\Comp PIan\Amendments\2003\M2003-M-03 WSD0'I\2002-M-03 Issue Paper.doc2002-M-03 Issue Paper.doc\ "-1 ri--=A S J,r- --~I--- ,---,i ---1 ,-~.-.-~ .... -\ ~-.. ----"-t _ ___ _ }i~ __ -------':::,.,--- --_. 2nd .--.~::=.:.::.--' t-'- , I ill l'lf 1 I 1-' .' ..... " -- ---/J-~ B- /1 _~W ~--- wim---'~ n-~ r£j Jf~~~ __ -_--'~ __ tji --=--~_-:~~ _ ____ _ ~ __ t/) OJ ~ nC:3:: "g; '" ::-0 , .. ~ DQ---~ . ----- .-.~ .. --- / / / (V/ .---' /r"" ._ ~~.'( F~~ -"--~ ~~'-'-----------" 'V . "-'--'-, -_._-----------------~ ----------~ \, ----------- -" ""~ ~ ... ~. ~, --'.' " ~-~ .. ~ •.. -...... .. \ '-'''( .~, \ \ \ L."--·~ ~ '" '\ \\ ~ \( '---, \ "----"->,,,~ " ',-, --- " ",,-~ '"~''' ,--"'-~ '- WSDOT -River (2003-M-03) Vicinity Map Study Area o 1000 500 I e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + lila + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G, Del Rosario 3 July 2003 1 : 6000 a 22.03 X WSDOT -River (2003-M-03) Topography Map e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Stmtegic Planning +.. + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G. Del Rosario 3 July 2003 Study Area 1m Interval Contours ~ 14.81 X 14.83 X o 100 200 I iit J I I 1 : 2400 WSDOT -River (2003-M-03) Sensitive Areas Map e .""",.m, D~'lop_, No"bo"'""," & ""''''' Pl~; .. + .. + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G. Del Rosario 3 July 2003 Study Area Flood Boundary Cedar River ~ >40% Slope o 100 200 ncijjjc tcllaaaoaaaaa:cct 1 : 2400 w .. I ··.CL.: WSDOT -River (2003-M-03) Landuse & Zoning Map e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning +·aa + Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~ G. Del Rosario 3 July 2003 ----r---- . --: B8888888-88888888:~. 00--. + -::CE. ~.~_. ~ CD-Center Downtown ~ COR-Center Office Residential ~ EAC-Employment Area Commercial 1 : 2400 ~ RR-Residential Rural c:::::J RS-Residential Single Family -Study Area Amendment #10. Review of policy text for the Commercial Office Residential land use designation. The analysis will focus on whether the Commercial Office Residential Land Use designation still reflects what the City desires for redevelopment of these areas. Review of these policies would focus on density, both minimum and maximum, range of uses and scale of development CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Rev.ll-Ol-04 COMMERClAUOFFICElRESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The CommerciaJIOfficelResidential (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 CommerciaJIOfficelResidential 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. Pollcy LU-406. Designate CommerciaJIOfficelResidential 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, Commercia1l0ffice/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-tenn retention of adjacent or abutting industrial or public uses. Policy LU-408. Uses in Commercia1l0fficelResidential designations should include mixed-use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, cultural facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and development facilities; and corporate headquarters .. "·'O"-·-,·------=·'-'--Poncy LU-409. Commercial uses such as retail andseivl2es~nowaS1lppolttlie primary uses of the site and be architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. Poliey LU-410. Commercial development, excluding big-box, may be a primary use in a CommerciaJIOfficelResidential designatioll; 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. IX-64 fI . , CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Rev. 11-01-04 Policy LU-411. Individual properties may have a single use if they can be developed at the scale and intensity envisioned for the designation Commercia1lOfficelResidential 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. Commercia1lOfficelResidential 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, Commercia1lOfficelResidential developments should be -primarily-pedestrim:..oriented. Internal site circulation of vehicles should be· sepatatext-. ~-*=-. 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. Commercia1lOfficelResidential developments should have a combination of internal and external site design features, such as: IX-65 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Rev.ll-Ol-04 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. .-;. ..... ----. .. -----.----~-... _-"-. IX-66 Amendment #11 Review of text for the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. The text addressing the Comprehensive Plan Vision was reviewed and updated as part of the 2004 GMA Update. Remaining sections of the Introduction, the Planning Process, Community History and Profile, Trends, and Growth Projections were not updated. A new Community Profile section is proposed to incorporate these sections. ' .. THE~lANNING PROCESS Why Plan? It is the city government's responsibility to provide public services and facilities, develop policies, and adopt regulations to guide the growth of a city that meets the needs of its people. The guide for Renton's growth and development is the Comprehensive Plan. What is a Comprehensive Plan? A comprehensive plan is a broad statement of community goals and policies that direct the orderly and coordinated physical development of a city into the future. A comprehensive plan anticipates change and provides specific guidance for future legislative and administrative actions. It reflects the results of citizen involvement, technical analysis, and the judgment of decision-makers. The Vision, goals, objectives, policies, and maps of the plan provide the basis for the adoption of regulations, programs, and services which implement the plan. The plan serves as a guideline for designating land uses and infrastructure development as well as developing community services. Who Plans? Renton residents, business owners, and City staff work together to shape the future of their community through the ongoing development of the Comprehensive Plan. The planning process provides an opportunity for individual citizens to contribute to this effort by attending community meetings to identify issues of concern or by serving on boards or commissions that function as citizen advisors to the City Council. The primary responsibility for fonnulating the Comprehensive Plan rests with the Planning Commission. The Commission is a citizens' committee appointed by the Mayor to make recommendations to the Council for land use or policy changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Before making a recommendation, the Commission conducts public hearings on behalf of the Council. Infonnation and comments presented by individual citizens and citizen organizations are weighed by the Planning Commission as it prepares a recommendations to City Council for revisions to the Plan. The ultimate planning decisions are made by the City Council. The Council is responsible for initiating plan reviews, considering Planning Commission recommendations, and adopting the Comprehensive Plan. To implement the Plan, the Council is also responsible for adopting the City's budget, regulations and programs, and for levying taxes and making appropriations. Citizen Participation Because public input is vital to effective planning, the City encourages community groups, businesses, and individuals to work together with City staff to identify and achieve community goals. The' following principles should guide all future planning efforts: • Encourage and facilitate public participation in all planning processes and make those processes user- friendly. • Consider the interests of the entire community and the goals and policies of this Plan before making land use decisions. Proponents of change in land· use should demonstrate that the proposed change responds to the interests and changing needs of the entire City, balanced with the interests of the neighborhoods most directly impacted by the project. 3 • • • Ensure that the process which identifies n~mmercial areas or expands existing areas considers the impacts of potential development on affected residential neighborhoods and results in decisions that are consistent with other policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Balance the interests of the commercial and residential communities when considering modifications to zoning or development regulations. Encourage and emphasize open communication between developers and neighbors about compatibility issues. What's in this Plan? This comprehensive plan is designed to be a readable, functional document that will guide Renton's future development and fulfill the City's regional responsibilities in growth management. This plan contains community history and profile, trends, growth projections and the Vision. Each of the elements that follow contain goals, objectives and policies. How is the Plan Implemented? After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the first step toward realizing the City's vision is implementation. Examples of implementation measures are: revisions to the Zoning Code, development of a Neighborhood Enhancement Program, participation in the King County Historic Preservation Program, and creation of incentives for private development to incorporate community design features such as public gathering places, art, street furniture and landscaping. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan After proper study and deliberation, amendments to. the Comprehensive Plan may be recommended by the .,'\ Planning Commission to the City Council. The City Council will consider amendments to the Plan not] more than annually, except for emergencies. Proposed amendments may be submitted during the first quarter of the year by the Mayor, Planning Commission, City Council, or private parties. GMA: The City of Renton is revising its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the State of Washington Growth Management Act of 1990. This legislation requires cities in rapidly growing areas to adopt Comprehensive Plans which include land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities and transportation elements. All elements of the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with each other and with state-wide and county-wide adopted planning goals. State-wide planning goals include provisions which discourage urban sprawl, support affordable housing, urge protection of the environment, and support provision of adequate urban services. In addition to these requirements, plans must be designed to accommodate 20 year growth forecasts, determined by regional agencies and local jurisdictions, within ~ell defined urban growth areas. COMMUNITY mSTORY AND PROFILE Physical Setting Renton is a city located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and rural King County. It is a city with strong residential neighborhoods, a strong industrial employment base, and a growing commerciaVoffice sector, Its location between Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma places Renton in the center of a region that is the economic hub of the State. The City is at the crossroads of a regional transportation network where seven State and Interstate highways converge and is central to national and international air traffic. 4 Renton covers approximately 16 square miles of land and is bordered by King County, Kent, Tukwila, Newcastle and Bellevue with Seattle nearby. The freeway system is a dominant visual feature of this city. Interstate 405 and SR 167 bisect the City, create visual barriers within the community, and defme the edges of districts and neighborhoods. It is from this freeway system that many people experience their first impression of the City. It includes portions of the valleys through which the Cedar and Green Rivers flow as well as adjacent uplands to the east and northeast. The natural features that defme the edges of the City and its neighborhoods include Lake Washington, the hills, plateaus, stream corridors, and valleys. While development over time has changed the appearance of the community, the natural features have generally remained constant. One exception to this is in the valleys where farmland and wetlands have been converted to other, more intensive uses. This is because these lands are relatively flat and less expensive to develop thus making them more attractive for uses requiring large amounts of land. Much of the development that has occurred in the valleys and the urban area over the last forty years has focused on accommodating the automobile, rather than the pedestrian. Renton has a strong sense of community. Residential areas are typically organized around schools, parks and other institutions. Renton's existing neighborhoods offer a a diverse housing stock ranging in unit type and price. Although it is one of the older cities within the region, Renton still has vacant and underused land in many neighborhoods, including the historic downtown, which offer an opportunity for growth. The plateau areas hold major residential neighborhoods and growth is expected in this area. Abundant views and green wooded areas characterize the hillsides encircling the downtown and along the Cedar River and May Creek. The topography and location of the City afford beautiful scenic views of a variety of significant natural features including Mt. Rainier, the Olympic Mountains, Lake Washington, and the Cascade Mountains. Renton's Past The Duwamish tribe were the earliest known Native American people to live in what is now Renton. The Duwamish had their villages near the Cedar and Black River confluence, the Black River and Lake Washington confluence and the base of Earlington Hill. In 1853 Henry Tobin came upon this area and lay claim to a square half-mile at the Cedar and Black River confluence. Being at the confluence of two rivers near a large lake was thought to be ideal for siting a future city for industrial and commercial growth with navigable transportation nearby. Renton was formally established with the platting of 480 acres of land by Erasmus Smithers in 1856. This original plat comprises much of present downtown Renton. The town grew as local coal deposits were mined. The downtown core, evolved out of the first plat of the town filed in 1876. This plat included the area from the .Cedar River south to Seventh Street, between Burnett Street and Mill Avenue. Early industries and businesses included coal mining, lumber, brick making, and rail and freight transportation. Early grocery stores and other family-run stores were located in what is presently downtown Renton. The downtown core was linked to other communities by both the Walla Walla Railroad and the Puget Sound Electric Railway. In its early days Renton had many stores ranging from drug, hardware and junk, grocery, clothing, home furnishing and banking. In 1901, upon incorporation, the City had a total area of one square mile. Since then, incremental annexations have increased the size of the City to encompass approximately 16.7 square miles. Employment in Renton has been dominated by industry since the City was first settled in the mid 1800's. Because of the nearby forests and proximity to water for transport, the first local industry was timber harvesting and processing. Beginning in the 1870's and continuing through the 1940's, Renton was known for its coal mining and brick making operations. Other industries includ~ production and transport of s lumber, and the supply of steel, pig iron, and equipment to railroad companies. During this period, the City established itself as an important industrial center. The Boeing Company's decision in the early 1940s to build a new plant at the south end of Lake Washington dramatically influenced the City's future. Rapid growth of the Boeing Company together with the merger of Pacific Car and Foundry into PACCAR, Inc. accelerated the City's rise as a regional industrial and employment center. Renton was transformed from a small town of 4,500 population to a thriving city with a population of 16,039 in the decade from 1940-1950 with construction of the Boeing Company's Renton plant. The industrial employment center developed at the same locations formerly occupied by extractive industries--perhaps in part because the transportation network to serve these sites was already well established. This became important because the industrial area remained in the heart of the City and was served by a transportation network which converged on the downtown area. With the shift away from rail toward automobile and truck transportation in the 1940s and 1950s, a new type of regional transportation hub was created in Renton. Two major freeways (Interstate 405 and SR 167) and three State highways (SR 900, 515 and 169) augmented and replaced the rail system. This road system was developed to provide a regional network allowing access around Lake Wasbington to serve the Renton industrial area. During this period, the transportation demand shifted fro~ exporting raw materials to importing a major work force. Renton developed as an independent city with its own downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods. Through a series of annexations, it expanded from one square mile in 1901 to sixteen square miles in 1991. With growth, the City provided more and more urban services to an increasing number of businesses and residents. Renton Today Renton has grown from a small compact town, nestled in the Cedar River and Green River Yalleys, to a much larger city which now spreads across the valley floors and into the adjacent hills. Renton's nearest neighbors, Kent and Tukwila, have grown similarly. Once separated by rural areas and open space, Renton and its neighbors are now growing together and becoming part of the larger Puget Sound metropolitan region. Renton is currently home to more than 43,970 (1994 OFM) people and ranks fourth in population in King County. An additional 60,000 people live in the unincorporated area surrounding the City. It is a city with many well-established neighborhoods--as well as some new neighborhoods. Renton continues to be an important center of employment. Over 45,000 people work in the city each day. Most of these people work for the Boeing Company or PACCAR Company, which continue to be major players in the local and regional economy. Renton, historically, has been a small city and in many ways it still resembles a small town. But several factors place it on the threshold of change: the continued vitality of Renton's industrial sector; regional population growth; and its location at the crossroads of local, national, and international traffic. These factors foreshadow a new role for Renton as an important metropolitan center. Renton, along with the rest of the region and the country has been experiencing an increase in professional "')'.':'" r" . < •• ~. . / and service jobs 'over the past few years. Boeing's related research and development facilities in andi around Renton have been a major factor in the development of office parks along Grady and in the north .; end of the Green River Valley. At the same time, there has been increased demand for goods and services 6 as evidenced by the number and types of co.mmercial uses along Rainier Avenue. As more land is converted to office and commercial use there will be less available for future industrial uses and the type of jobs they provide. The pressures of economic growth and progress have resulted in the construction of office buildings, factories, housing projects, and supporting infrastructure in the City. A network of freeways, arterials and transmission lines criss-cross Renton and divide the community. Development occurring outside of the City has also affected the character of the community. Regional shopping centers competing with Renton's downtown retail core have resulted in a shift in marketable goods in the downtown from general merchandise to specialty items. This transition has changed the visual character of the downtown as businesses open or relocate. Vacant land remains scattered throughout Renton, but, as time passes, will become an increasingly scarce resource. Some vacant land is environmentally sensitive and not suitable for intensive development. However, based on current estimates, there are approximately 2,250 acres of vacant and developable land in Renton. The largest blocks of vacant land are generally found in Renton's outlying areas. Smaller pockets of vacant land and vacant lots are found in most of the City's existing neighborhoods. The challenge for Renton is to manage growth in a manner which maintains the desirable features of the City while being flexible enough to take advantage of opportunities for change. TRENDS Rapid regional growth has produced development pressure throughout the City. As in many other communities, recent commercial development has shifted away from downtown, and a growing number of retail and office uses are locating along major roadways and within residential neighborhoods. While this increases the convenience to some residents, it also erodes the viability of the downtown, contributes to traffic congestion, intrudes upon neighborhoods and encourages strip commercial development along the major thoroughfares throughout the City and the adjacent unincorporated area. In addition, multi-family development, which is increasing as a percentage of the total housing stock, is frequently clustered around these commercial developments along major arterials. Single Family: Traditionally, single family development has consumed the greatest amount of the City's developable land. However, according to the 1990 Census, in recent years (between 1980-89), the supply of multi-family housing has grown at a faster rate than single family housing. Between 1980 and 1990, 5600 housing units were built in Renton: 67% of these were multi-family units. This has brought the amount of multi-family housing within the city from roughly 40% of the total housing stock in 1980 to 50% in 1990. If current trends continue, the City's total supply of multi-family housing could outpace single family housing in the future. Multi-family Development: Multi-family units in Renton increased at a faster rate than single family units between 1980 and 1990. Single family increased 12%, mobile homes increased 112%, 5-9 unit multi-family increased 141 % and 10-49 units multifamily 94%. This growth pattern changed the overall percentage of multi-family housing as a percentage of the housing stock from roughly 40% in 1980 to 50% by 1990. Commercial Centers: Continuation of the low intensity, suburban growth pattern will likely result in more commercial shopping areas in the Renton planning area, and expansion of the existing commercial areas along arterials and into surrounding neighborhoods within the City. Evidence of this development pattern can be seen in the Coal Creek area, Benson Hill and Fairwood, and along Sunset and Duvall in 7 Renton. Strip commercial is another common result of low intensity development, especially along principal and major arterial routes; one example is along both sides of Benson Road south of Carr/SE 176th. Unfortunately this development pattern carries economic and environmental costs to the entire City. Economically there is a cost for the extra driving required for work and personal trips. In terms of environmental costs there is the declining air quality from automobile emissions and inefficient land use and disruptions to existing neighborhoods. Institutions: The expansion of the Valley Medical Center and related development is expected to continue. Renton Technical College is currently expanding its operations on campus. As both of these institutional uses grow to serve the region, they are expected to expand beyond current boundaries and into surrounding neighborhoods. Industrial: Industrial employment, especially manufacturing, is declining nation-wide. In the Puget Sound region, while the proportion of jobs in the industrial sector is projected to decline, the number of manufacturing jobs in this area is expected to remain relatively stable, at least through the year 2020. In Renton, commercial uses, mainly office and services are increasing as a sector of the employment base. This trend reflects the increased demand for office and service uses which is symptomatic of the regional economy's gradual shift from an industrial base to a service base. However, this trend is not as pro- nounced in Renton as elsewhere for two important reasons. First, according to the 1989 Community profile, the City has a large, existing, industrial employment base, and second, it also has a relatively large supply of land in industrial uses (14%). This compares to 7% for commercial use and 24% for residential use. Industrial zoning accounted for 23 % of vacant lands while commercial was 2.8 %, public use 8.4% and residential 65.5%. In Renton the most noticeable changes are occurring in the mix and type of industrial activities within the City. Most noticeable is a trend away from heavy industrial/manufacturing toward medium and light industrial uses. Although manufacturing is expected to remain stable and industrial jobs are expected to decline, the number of light and medium industrial jobs in wholesale/transportation/communications/ utilities is projected to nearly double in the Renton area through 2020~ A second trend is a blurring of land use category descriptions as technology changes the way work is done and more activities include office and computer components. This change is manifested by an increase in the mixes of uses, either within one company or within one building or complex. For example, many businesses are constellations of light industrial, manufacturing research and development and office uses. Changes are expected to occur in Renton's employment areas incrementally over a long period of time. Some industrial areas will redevelop into other uses but in some cases inappropriate infrastructure or cleanup of contaminants on the site may limit redevelopment. In other cases viable industrial uses exist on a site and will operate for several years but property owners anticipate a change in use over the long term. For example, both the Stoneway and Barbee Mill sites have submitted proposals for future projects mixing office and residential uses. Although the rate of change in industrial lands is slow it is significant because if too much land is converted to non industrial uses, it could have a detrimental effect on retaining the industrial base. The office and service sector is expanding in terms of both overall acreage and intensity of use. New mid- rise office development of 4-6 stories is spreading south and north of the downtown in areas previously zoned industrial. 8 . .. ) .: .. " .. ) Commercial retail and service areas outside of the downtown are gradually sprawling along major arterials. In these areas the trend is toward continuation of low rise automobile oriented commercial developments. In many cases these developments compete with businesses in downtown Renton. In several areas of the City light industrial developments which were displaced by higher intensity uses in the downtown core/north Valley, or need older structures or cheaper land, are locating along the City's arterials. Office Development: Office development is currently occurring or proposed in and around downtown Renton in the Green River Valley, North Renton, and Kennydale. Development pressure for new office construction is expected to continue in Renton due to the existing large employment base, availability of land and the relatively good freeway access. Improved transit service in the areas is expected to enhance this trend. Schools: Multiple use of school facilities has been a trend that will likely continue. Renton School District enrollment has been declining overall since its peak in 1970. While enrollment has declined by 24% since 1970, the rate of decline has slowed from 15% during the 1970's to 10% during the 1980's. Enrollment is down slightly from 1990 figures but overall it is relatively stable. Long term projections anticipate larger enrollments and an increased need for facilities in the district based on increased birth rates for the population in general. Religious Centers: The trend over the past decade or so has been for religious groups to provide more services to their members and the public at large. These services require additional land and facilities for schools, gymnasiums, offices, parking, expanded hours of worship and social services. As a result these facilities are having a greater impact on adjacent neighborhoods and the. existing infrastructure. Open Space: Renton is developing an ambitious open space acquisition program within the Department of Community Services. The program's main goals are to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural areas in an urban environment and to afford public access to these areas with limited development and disturbances. Many of the sites will remain relatively undisturbed, while wildlife and habitat areas that are less fragile will be more developed with park and recreation facilities and allow greater public access. As the City of Renton grew, many of those portions of the City which have natural hazardous features were passed over for land more easily developed. Now, however, with the amount of easily developable land diminishing, the critical areas are becoming more attractive for urban uses. Annexation: The City has historically undertaken annexation in response to requests from local property owners. For many years most annexations were of small areas which were already urbanized. Future trends are likely to be three types of annexations: 1) annexation of larger undeveloped parcels within the urban designated area; 2) annexation of smaller infill parcels within urban area which are developed at urban densities, but lack urban levels of services such as sewer; and 3) annexation of commercial andlor residential neighborhoods within the urban designated area which already developed in King County. Traffic: There is one solid traffic trend within the region: traffic is increasing. A variety of reasons explain this increase: the growth in population, jobs and housing; more people are now commuting within the region; the location of employment and housing impacts the length and variety of trips made; new housing development is occurring on vacant land in outlying parts of the metropolitan area rather than on land closer to traditional urban centers; and employment areas are relocating to suburban areas. 9 The general increase in standard of living in the region also generates more traffic because, as the standard of living goes up, car ownership increases and so does trip making. In addition, the average length of trips is also increasing. The cumulative effect of all of these factors is more cars on the road and greater traffic congestion. Current traffic improvement projects and programs undertaken by the City's Transportation Division include realignment of the S-Curves and the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to Interstate 405, completion of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., the widening of Grady Way, development and implementation of the North Renton Transportation Plan, and establislunent of a system of truck routes. The City is also presently working on expansion of its system of pedestrian and bicycle trails. Airport: The airport is already a heavily used facility and demand on the airport continues to steadily grow. This growth is primarily due to the closure of other general aviation airports in the region such as those which were at Bellevue and Kent. It is also partially due to the increases in production at the Boeing plant. In addition there is increased demand for seaplane activity at the seaplane base due to closure of seaplane facilities elsewhere in the region. Public Facilities: There is no one trend which can be used to describe these various facilities. For ex- ample; some municipal facilities may become more decentralized in the future while others could do the opposite. Library facilities, at least for the remainder of this decade, are not expected to decentralize. Expectations are that the main facility downtown and the Highlands branch will continue to serve the needs of the community. Most municipal administrative functions are also expected to remain centralized with the development of a new municipal complex in the downtown. . .. 0) Fire Services: Fire services by their nature must be decentralized in order to provide adequate protection for the entire City. As the City grows in population and land area, additional fire stations will be needed for new and currently under-served areas. The Fire Department Master Plan (March 1987) cites the Kennydale and Tiffany· Park neighborhoods and the Green River Valley industrial area as having level of service deficiencies due to the response time to those areas. In addition, it states, "If annexations occur in the East Kennydale, Sierra Heights, and East Duvall Avenue communities and in the Cedar River corridor, they will have substandard fire protection based on the five-in-Jive standard and current station locations. " The "five-in-five" standard is the department's desired level of service; to have five fire fighters on the scene five minutes after receiving the call. Downtown: The Downtown Renton Association is leading an effort to change the gradual decline in the downtown shopping area. Downtown merchants are working with the City to implement a redevelopment concept for the downtown emphasizing mixed use development, including residential uses, and supporting additional street amenities and parking improvements. Although this effort is too new to show many results, several new developments are in process including a multi-story senior housing complex. Environment: In addition, the development within the City's sphere of influence and within the City itself has contributed to some environmental changes. Because of the increase in impervious surfaces and land clearing, run-off has increased, and consequently flooding has also increased in downstream areas. Streams and rivers have experienced increased siltation from erosion resulting in flooding and delta formations. While no seismic events of any magnitude have occurred, those areas of Renton with higher seismic risks than others could be affected in the future. Additional inappropriate development in these areas could pose a public safety risk in future seismic events. The historical coal mines of the area were not fully documented and many abandoned mine shafts exist in areas which will likely be used for urban 10 oj growth. Finally, each year the City has landslides which threaten private property, and impede roads and utilities. Urban growth will probably continue to spread into the remaining rural areas and open space that now separates Renton from adjacent urban areas. As Renton's downtown grows, it is likely to remain as a relatively low-profIle urban center. Destination-oriented specialty shopping will draw patrons from the local and regional area. Currently, the City is working in cooperation with the Downtown Renton Association to improve the urban design of the area. Commercial and industrial development within Renton will continue to be primarily auto-oriented and dominated by large surface parking lots. On a city- wide basis, only modest improvements are likely to be seen in the pedestrian environment. Renton's residential areas will form loosely defIned neighborhoods consisting primarily of a collection of housing developments. GROWTH PROJECTIONS During the last part of the 1980s there was an increase in the population of Renton and the unincorporated area surrounding the City. The number of work places within the City has also increased. As a result of this growth, vacant land was converted to development. Vacant land not in public ownership or protected by land use regulation is rapidly disappearing as the City matures. In addition, the value of the remaining open land is increasing. Population In 1990, the population of the Renton planning area was estimated at 10 1,600. This area includes the City of Renton as well as unincorporated urban areas surrounding the city including portions of Skyway, the East Renton Plateau and North Soos Creek. Of the total Renton planning area population, 43,970 (1994 OFM) people lived within the City of Renton and roughly 60,000 people lived in the currently unincorporated portions of the planning area. Employment In 1990 estimates showed approximately 59,656 employees working within the Renton planning area; about 53,851 (86%) of these employees worked within the City of Renton. By the year 2010, employment in the Renton planning area is forecast to increase by an additional 32,218 jobs. Approximately 27,300 of these new jobs (85%) would be located within current city boundaries. Because Renton's urban center is almost at build-out in terms of total jobs, most of the employment growth would happen in Employment Areas outside of the Urban Center mainly located within the Green River Valley. Preliminary King County employment growth targets would ask the City of Renton to accommodate fewer jobs than growth forecasts because the Countywide Planning Policies direct job growth from non-urban center areas into urban centers. Because Renton's urban center is almost built out and cannot accommodate a signifIcant amount of employment growth, this approach would direct job growth from non-urban center areas in Renton into urban centers which have not yet approached build out. Preliminary growth targets would ask Renton to plan for roughly 4,000 fewer jobs than growth forecasts. Preliminary growth targets for the unincorporated portions of Renton's planning area have not yet been proposed by King County. Both the growth forecasts and growth targets, however, indicate substantial employment growth within the Renton planning area over the next 20 years. This signifIcant growth in employment will create a strong· associated demand for housing growth within the Renton area. 11 Amended 12108197 Household The City is planning for a twenty year period of growth. In 1990, the City of Renton had a total population of 41,395 persons. With the 60,198 people residing in the annexation area, the total population for the . Planning Area (city plus annexation area) in 1990 was 101,593. This translates to 18,031 households in the City, 22,392 households in the annexation area, or a total of 40,423 households in the Planning Area in 1990. Expected increases in population will result in 57,409 persons (or 25,956 households) living within the current city limits by the year 2010; and, 77,752 persons (or 29,128 households) in the annexation area. The total forecasted population of Renton's Planning Area is expected to be 135,161 persons (or 55,084 households) by 2010. Amended 10/99 OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS The Comprehensive Plan provides guidance to many aspects of city development and state priorities for future changes. Renton has other supporting documents that relate to implementing the Comprehensive Plan. For more infonnation about these documents please refer to the responsible City division listed below. These documents are incorporated in the Renton Comprehensive Plan by reference. DEVELOP~TSERVICES Renton City Code Critical Area and Resource Lands Shoreline Master Program ISSAOUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT Current adopted Capital Facilities Plan, Issaquah School District No. 411. LONG-RANGE PLANNING Census and Demographics Forecasts Mapping Community Profile PARKS ADMINISTRATION Trails Master Plan Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DMSION City of Renton Truck Route Ordinance Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Renton Transit Plan Support Document Level of Service Documentation Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report Central Subarea Transportation Plan Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance and Plan (Airport Master Plan) UTILITY SYSTEMS Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan Comprehensive Water System Plan Renton Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan Cedar River Basin Plan Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan Eastside Green River Watershed Plan May Creek Plan 16 \. • Amendment #12. Review of policy text in the Utilities Element pertaining to private utility purveyors. These policies were not updated during the 2004 GMA review. CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES Rev. 11101104 MENT Policy U-74. Design stonn drainage systems to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation problems, and to preserve natural drainage systems including rivers, streams, flood plains, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Policy U-7S. Encourage the retention of natural vegetation along lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams, where appropriate, in order to help preserve water quality, protect fishery resoW'Ces, and control erosion and runoff. Policy U-76. Filling, culverting, and piping of natural watercourses that are classified as streams shall not be allowed, except as needed for a public works project. In the case where a public works project requires the filling, c~verting, or piping of a natural watercourse, if no other option is available, then such projects should follow specific design standards to minimize impacts to the natural watercourse. Such standards should prevent flooding and the degradation of water quality, . aquatic habitat, and the effectiveness of the local natural drainage system. This would include providing mitigation to replace the lost ftmctions provided by the natural watercourse that is filled, culverted, or piped by the public works project. Policy U-77. Promote and support public education and involvement programs that address surface water quality and other surface water management issues. Policy U-78. Encourage the safe and appropriate ... _'~ __ " .,u~e of detention and retention ponds, biofiltration Solid Waste swales, clean roof run-off, and groundwater recharge technologies to reduce the volwne of . surface water run-off, to recharge aquifers, and to support base flows in streams for aquatic resources. Policy U-79. Work towards protecting surface water resources and groundwater resources from pollutants entering via the stonn drainage system. Policy U-80. Implement stonnwater standards that adequately control flow (quantity) and quality of stonnwater nmoff from new and redevelopment projects to protect public health and safety, prevent property damage, prevent erosion, and protect surface water quality, groundwater quality, and fish habitat. Policy U-81. Coordinate with adjacent cities, counties, and state and federal agencies in the development and implementation of the Clean Water Act's National Pollution Eliminating System Phase 2 Permit for Municipal Separate Stonn Sewer Systems. Policy U-82. Existing natural drainage, watercourses, ravines, and other similar land features should be protected from the adverse effects of erosion from increased storm water runoff. Policy U-83. Stonn and surface water management programs should be coordinated with adjacent local and regional jurisdictions. Policy U-84. Reserve . ."' ." . .'.. '. .. .~ . Discussion: These policies support the provision of adequate qnd safe waste handling and disposal facilities. In addition, these policies support active recycling efforts aimed at extending the life cycle of these facilities Existing Conditions Utility Service Area Solid waste collection within the city limits is mandated by state and city code and only the City's contractor may provide such service. The City sets rates for solid waste collection, and bills all customers directly for XII-23 • CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT Rev. 11/01/04 these services. The City contracts with Waste Management-Rainier for all solid waste collection within the city limits. State law also gives Renton the authority to contract for collection of residential recyclables and yard waste. Curbside collection ofrecyclables is available to all single-family and duplex residents of the City, and onsite collection is available to all multi-family and duplex residents fourplex and above). Yard waste collection is available to all single-family and duplex residents with the exception of mobile home park residents. Yard waste collection may be available to multi-family and mobile home residents for an additional fee. Waste Management, Inc. provides collection containers for all of these programs. The recycling and yard waste collection programs are voluntary. The City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for these services. Coordination with Other Solid Waste Purveyors Through an interlocal agreement with King County, the County's disposal System handles all solid waste generated within city limits, except solid waste diverted by waste reduction or recycling activities. King County regulates the types of waste accepted at its facilities as well as the disposal rates. Renton's interlocal agreement with King County also authorizes the County to prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management·Plan and to include the City in the Plan. The County achieved its 1995 goal of fifty percent (50010) waste reduction and recycling under the Plan. Renton works cooperatively with other jurisdictions in the region to implement the Local Hazardous Waste MaIiagement Plan (LHWMP). Participants in the LHWMP inQlude thirty-eight (38) suburban cities, the City of Seattle, King County Solid Waste Division, King County Water and Land Division, and the Department of Public Health, Seattle-King County. The l1IWMP provides a regional program to manage hazardous waste generated in small quantities by households and businesses in King County. To provide fimding for the LHWMP, the City of Renton and all other solid waste and sewer service providers in King County, collect hazardous waste fees from customers through utility bills. XII-24 >< :r ~ • o * Figure 5-1.. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Cedar HIIII l:ondl1l1 R,nton Tronlf.r Stotlon' Block River Con.tructlon. Demolition ond Lond Cleorln9 Tron.fer Stotlon ----------City Limit. -'-'-'-'-'-'-Urbon Growth Boundory -."-.. -.. -.. -.. -Sphere of Influence y 5000 1090~ Note: F'or 9rophlc pr .. enlotlon only. F'ocllltl .. ore not to Icole. e LONG lWIGE PUNNING O.DelUlltoll ~ + R.MaOOllle. D.Vlln .. kl 24 Waroh 19ge ~ = Q. ~~ ~O'CI (I' = -"'I ~ ~ ~I(' n .... •. =:: -•. ~ ~o ~~ 5;0 -""' i~ ~ ! ! CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ~ ... ..MENT Rev.lllOl/04 Regional Solid Waste Purveyors within the City Limits The King County Solid Waste Division owns and operates the Renton Transfer Station in the 3000 block ofNE 4th Street in the Renton Highlands neighborhood. Local waste haulers and residents of unincorporated King County who haul their own waste use this facility. City residents also use this facility for disposal oflarge and bulky items. Due to state legislation and Washington Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC) regulations, the City does not have the authority to contract exclusively for collection of recyclable materials generated by businesses. However, a number of private companies do collect recyclables from businesses in Renton. Location and Capacity of Existing Solid Waste Facilities Figure 5-1 illustrates the location of the transfer station, landfill, and construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) transfer facility within the City's Planning Area. King Calmty's Renton Transfer Station is located in the Renton Highlands. A majority of the solid waste generated in Renton is transported there by the City's contractor, Waste Management, Inc. A majority of the vehicles that utilize the Transfer Station are garbage trucks from waste hauling companies. Regional Disposal's Black River Transfer and Recycling Center (a Rabanco facility), located at 501 Monster Road SW, opened in late 1993. Under a contract with King County, this facility accepts construction, demolition, and land clearing waste. The facility received 89,300 tons ofCDL material in 1999. There is no data on the amount of CDL processed at construction sites and hauled directly to a processor. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the amount ofCDL waste being diverted from the facility. The City of Renton recognizes that the Mt Olivet Landfill (cloSed 1991) was not closed in accordance with State of Washington closure standards. Areas of deficiency include excessively steep slopes, lack of adequate capping, possible negative environmental consequences, failure to obtain an approved closure plan and other related deficiencies. The City continues to monitor groundwater quality in the vicinity of the landfill to assure that potential contaminants do not enter the City's drinking water aquifer. If contamination is detected, the City has contingency measures to address this problem, such as selective operation of the City's eight wells and groundwater pumping to remove contaminants. Identified areas of contamination would be monitored until the contaminants are removed. King County's Cedar Hill Landfill, owned and operated by the King County Solid Waste Division, and located southeast of Renton, will continue to receive all solid waste generated in the City of Renton. This facility's remaining permitted capacity is approximately 12.5 million tons (as of January 2000). At the current level of fifty percent (50%) waste reduction and recycling, Cedar Hills will be able to accept solid waste until 2012. Recyclables collected from single family, duplex, and multi-family residents in the City are taken to Waste Management, Inc. ' s Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville, W A. Yard waste for single-family and duplex residents in the City is currently taken to Cedar Grove Recycling in Maple Valley. Their yearly capacity is 195,000 tons of organiC material. Currently, the facility handles approximately 172,000 tons annually. Cedar Grove is permitted by the Seattle-King County Health Department to have 250,000 cubic yards of organic material onsite. The City's residential yard waste collection program has diverted increasing amounts of the residential waste stream every year, successfully diverting over 30% in 2001, and more than seven percent (7%) of the City's XII-26 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES I lENT Rev. 11101104 total waste stream annually since it began in 1989. Yard waste makes up only 0.9 percent of the remaining residential waste stream; therefore any increase in diversion would be minimal. Food waste makes up almost thirty-five percent (35%) of the residential waste stream after recyclables and yard wastes are diverted. The Solid Waste Utility implemented a pilot food waste composting program in 1994 and 1995 to assess the feasibility of diverting this material from Renton's residential waste stream. Worm compost bins were delivered to approximately 200 residents and weeldy measurements were made on their waste practices. This led to a period of several years in which residents could obtain a worm bin from the city for the purpose of residential food waste cOIDpOsting. Reliability of Existing Solid Waste Services and Facilities The services of the City's solid waste and recycling collection contractor, Waste Management, Inc., have been very reliable since the inception of the program in 1989. The number of missed collections has remained consistently low. Contingency plans for collection are provided in the solid waste contract in the event of extreme weather condit.ions. Interruption of service due to a contract dispute is not likely because the City has completed negotiations of a new contract with Waste Management, Inc. The new contract terminates at the end of2005, but has the potential to be extended with two 2-yearextension options. At this time, the capacities of the Renton Transfer Station and the Cedar Hills Landfill are sufficient, and any regulatory issues are being addressed by the appropriate agency. The capacity of the Cascade Recycling Center for processing recyclab1es and the capacity of Cedar Grove Recycling for composting yard wastes are both adequate to meet the City's needs. Forecasted Conditions Future Utility Service Areas The City's Solid Waste Utility will continue to provide solid waste collection to all residents and businesses within the city limits. Curbside collection of recyclables and yard waste will continue to be available to all single-family and duplex residents in Renton. Multi-family residences continue to be eligtble for on-site collection of recyclables. Yard waste collection will continue to be offered to mobile home parks and multi- family complexes for an additional fee. When annexations take place, the franchise hauler in the annexed area has authority to collect solid waste for a period of up to seven (7) years. After seven years, the City's contractor may take over service in the annexed area. The City's contractor should be able to increase solid waste, recycling, and yard waste collection service to households and businesses as needed. Since King County has planned for both incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County, disposal facilities are anticipated to be adequate should the City annex areas of unincorporated King County. Location and Capacity of Future Facilities Currently, King County plans to keep the Renton Transfer Station operational and to install a compactor by 2012, at a cost of $4,000,000. This date coincides with the projected closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill, and will enable the facility to prepare waste for transport to a new location. Transportation of noncompacted waste costs approximately 1.5 times more than the cost of hauling compacted waste. Therefore, the installation ofthe compactor should minimize any necessary rate increases caused by the greater distance between the transfer station and a new facility. King County's Final 2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan suggests XII-21 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELEMENT Rev. 11lOll04 that a study be made of the possibility of privatization of the transfer system. The City of Renton is concerned that this may limit market competition in the private sector. TIle City is also concerned that ending public ownership of transfer facilities will limit the City's influence over rates and service levels. King County's Cedar Hills Landfill is the last regional landfill located in the County. While the diversion rate by City residents has risen sharply in the past ten years (diverting 58.6 percent as of July 2001), the overall quantity of waste bas also risen, and Cedar Hills is schedUled for closure in 2012. Under the 2000 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, the King County Solid Waste Division is exploring waste export possibilities. After the Cedar Hills closure, it is likely that solid waste will be exported outside the County. Waste Management, Inc.'s Cascade Recycling Center will continue to receive Renton residents' recyclables as long as the City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for collection. To increase their overall processing capacity, Waste Management Inc. has diverted paper generated in North King County and South Snohomish County from the Seattle plant to its Woodinville transfer station for processing. This change has allowed the Seattle plant to handle more recyclable material generated in South King County. The amount of yard waste collected through the City's program is not expected to increase significantly. Therefore, capacity at the Cedar Grove compo sting facility in the County should be sufficient to meet future needs. Coordination with Other Purveyors The interlocal agreement between the City of Renton and King County, which designates the County's disposal system for the disposal of all solid waste generated within city limits, remains in effect through June 30, 2028. Either party may request review and/or renegotiation of the agreement every five years. It is anticipated that the ;: . "'~ City will coordinate with the County to negotiate a new interlocal agreement upon the expiration of the existing agreement. Interloeal Agreements Chapter 70.95 RCW requires the County to regularly update the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (the Plan). According to the provisions of the City's interlocal agreement with King County, this update will occur every three years The City will be included in future Plan updates, and representatives of the City will continue to be involved in the Plan update process. The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (LHWMP), in which the City of Renton participates, follows a five-year update schedule as required by Chapter 70.105 RCW. The first update occmred in 1995. The City will continue to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions and agencies involved in the LHWMP to implement programs to manage hazardous wastes generated in small quantities from households and businesses in King County, including the collection of hazardous waste fees from City solid waste customers. Reliability Annexations to the City and the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill are not expected to have a significant impact on the ability of the City's contractor to provide reliable solid waste, recycling and yard waste collection services. If changes within Waste Management, Inc. affect the ability of their company to provide services to City customers, the City bas the ability to renegotiate the contract, or enter into a contract with another service provider. XIJ-28 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES. lENT Rev. 11/01/04 Depending on regional regulations, the yard waste composting facility at Cedar Grove, may have problems handling significant increases in the amount of organic waste collected in the future. However, the City does not anticipate this to happen. Objective: U-G: To provide a responsible, comprehensive waste management program that includes economic efficiency, environmental sensitivity, and responsiveness to the needs of the community. The City should pursue a reduction of the overall waste stream, recycling, and long-term waste handling and disposal solutions. Policy U-84. Provide and maintain an adequate system of solid waste, recycling collection, disposal, and handling to meet existing and future needs. Policy U-8S. Coordinate with regional agencies in planning for the facilities and services necessary for solid waste collection and disposal, including the siting of regional transfer and waste handling facilities. Policy U-86. Reduction of the waste stream should be supported and promoted for all residential, cOmnlercial, and industrial uses within the city (i.e. through programs and public education including recycling, composting, re-use, and energy recovery programs that meet environmental standards). . Policy U-87. Where economically feasible and legally acceptable, citywide collection of recyclable materials should be supported and promoted. Policy U-88. The proper handling and disposal of solid waste should be required to protect public health and safety. Policy U-89. Contamination ofland, air, and water should be minimized or eliminated. Electrical System Existing Conditions Background Policy U-90. Coordinate with agencies in the region on educational and other programs for the safe management and disposal of hazardous household wastes. Policy U-91. Support products and practices that offer safe and effective alternatives to the use of potentially hazardous substances in order to reduce the total amount of hazardous waste. Policy U-92. Actively support the creation of markets for products made with recycled materials. Policy U-93. Actively support regionally coordinated efforts that promote producer responsibility and environmental stewardship. Three purveyors distribute electricity to and within the Renton Planning Area: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Seattle City Light (SeL), and Puget Sound Energy (PSE). BPA is the regional administrative entity of the U.S. Department of Energy. Seattle City Light is a publicly owned utility serving Seattle and environs. Puget Sound Energy is a private, inve~tor-owned utility that provides electrical service to approximately 1 million customers in the Puget Sound region. These three utilities are part of an integrated transmission grid that connects points of production and demand and permits inter-utility exchange of power across the region. To make this possible, the various elements of the individual systems were designed to function compatibly with the facilities of other network utilities. High XII-29 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES EL)!;MENT Rev. 11/01104 capacity transmission lines also allow inter-regional and international power transfers to compensate for seasonal, region-wide variations in generation and demand. BP A owns and operates most of the major transmission lines and substations located throughout the Pacific Northwest. The agency sells transmission services on the high capacity grid to customers throughout the region. Additionally, BPA marlcets electricity generated by federal hydroelectric projects and the Washington Public Power Supply System. Puget Sound energy, Seattle City Light, and other utilities purchase power and transmission services from BPA as local situations warrant Electricity is retailed to customers in the Renton Planning Area by Puget Sound Energy and, to a lesser extent, by Seattle City Light. For both utilities, the primary generation facilities are located outside their service areas. Puget Sound Energy supplements these sources with power generated and/or purchased within its greater service area. Each utility schedules electrical generation to meet anticipateti local demand loads with excess production sold elsewhere on the power grid. Existing Utility Service Area Puget Sound Energy is the principal provider of electrical service within the Renton city limits, as well as most of the remainder ofthe Renton Planning Area. Electricity is provided to the Bryn Mawr and Skyway portions of the Renton Planning Area by SCL. By historical circumstance, Seattle also serves 10 customers within the Renton city limits. Currently, SCL and Puget Sound Energy are negotiating an agreement to transfer the facilities within the City of Renton to PSE. This action probably won't occur until late 1994 at the earliest General Location of FacUities Electrical facilities can generally be divided into generation, transmission, and distribution functions. Transmission lines are identified by voltages of 115 kilovolt (kV) and above, distribution facilities have less than 55,000 volts (55 kV), and a distribution substation transforms voltages of 115 kV or greater to feeder circuits at lower voltages of 12 or 34 kV. Within the Planning Area, BPA operates transmission facilities, Seattle City Light operates transmission and distribution facilities, and Puget Sound Energy engages in all three functions. Figure 6-1 illustrates existing and proposed electrical substations and other transmission system facilities within the Planning Area. Renton's geographic position offers a logical location for transmission routes. Five BP A transmission circuits follow the Rocky Reach-Maple Valley right-of-way, which enters the Planning Area from the east, just south of the Ced3r River, and terminates at BPA's Maple Valley Substation. The lines, two 500 kV, one 345 kV, and two 230 kV, originate at BPA facilities north, south, and east of Renton. As electrical service provider to most of the Planning Area, Puget Sound Energy builds, maintains and/or operates various facilities. These include high voltage transmission lines for bulk power transfers, substations for system monitoring and control and changing of voltage levels, and lower voltage feeder lines to carry the electricity to the consumers. The high capacity lines energized at 230 kV and 115 kV feed out from the Talbot Hill Station, which receives power from the adjacent BPA Maple Valley Station. From Talbot Hill these lines carry power to other transmission stations or to distribution substations where the voltage is stepped down for entry into the feeder system. XU-30 >< = w Figure 6-1. ELECTRICAL FACILITIES -----Puge~ PQwer . -----Seottl. City Light ... -.. -.. _ ... Bonneville Pow.r Admlnl.trotlon -----Propo .. d Tron,mlllion Lin •• @ Propo •• iI Upgrode of Existing Lin.. 'rom 11 SKV 10 2JOKV SUBSTA nONS . Pug,t BOling BPA SCL III O._otlon Tron.",llIlon Olllribution • o ~. • ;. lI( Propostd Distribution ~abl. City Limits Urbon Growth Boundary Sphere of InfluenCI .! ? 5000' i oyoo Not.: ror graphic presentotlon only. rocnln.s ore not to scalI. e LONG RANGE PUNNING O.DII1I1I.o" • tit • R.MaoOl1le. D.VI." •• 1cI 24 March 1991! ~ ~ :t~ n'~' eo ... ~('D ~ ~ =.-'5' ~ !§ "'0 C5~ !~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES E .... "" .. IENT Rev. 11101104 The portion of Renton's Planning Area currently served by Seattle City Light is small, containing only two minor distribution substations, Bryn Mawr and Skyway. Power is provided to these substations by Seattle's Creston distribution substation. In addition, several Seattle City Light rights-of-way pass through the City and the Urban Growth Area. These circuits include: • The Bothell-Renton Right-of-Way (ROW), with one of two SCL 230 kV lines currently in use and leased to Puget Sound Energy. • The Renton-Creston ROW, with six 230 kV lines. • The Cedar Falls ROW, with one 115 kV line. CapacitylReliability of Existing System Puget Sound Energy and Seattle City Light are both capable of meeting the current electrical load in their respective service areas. Puget Sound Energy operates eleven distribution substations in the Renton Planning Area with a total nameplate capacity of284,400 kilowatts (kW). The residentia1lconnnercial peak load utilization factor for these ~ubstations is 87.5%. SCL's Creston substation is outside the Planning Area, but supplies power within it. Creston's capacity is 106,000 kW and has a utilization factor of 81 %. The utilization factor, or the load to capacity ratio, is normally maintained in the 75% to 85% range. Leaving excess capacity under normal conditions allows a reserve for periods of extraordinary load during extreme cold weather, and for system diversity. . The capacity of individual elements is not the sole consideration in evaluating an electrical system, however. Our dependence on electrical power is such that the overall grid and the constituent utilities must continue to furnish power even with the failure of individual components. Electric service interruptions are most frequently a product of extraordinary circwnstances. Either an unusual load has overtaxed an element of the system or it has been weakened or removed by some external condition or event. Any such occurrence could cut off an area from the grid and/or endanger other parts of the system by a sudden transfer of power from one conductor to another of insufficient capacity. To mitigate these threats to the system. redundant lines and facilities of adequate capacity are necessary. This diversity is progranuned to meet reliability criteria, which asswne a failure of one or two components of a system (single or double contingency) with no loss of customers or damage to equipment. Forecasted Conditions -Electrical Forecasted increases in population would result in 135,1()1 persons and 91,874 jobs, within the Planning Area, by 2010. Based on these forecasts the Renton Planning Area will have an additional load of 147.3 MY A, excluding industrial load increaSes, at the extreme winter peak in 2010. Industrial load additions will comprise some part of the 82.3 MY A increase that Puget Sound Energy anticipates for Renton industrial consumers by 2020. XII-32 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES Rev. 11/01/04 MENT Future Capacity of Electrical Facilities t To assure system reliability and to provide the capacity necessary to accommodate the growth anticipated for the Renton Planning Area, SCL, BP A, and PSE have planned for upgrades and additions to their respective systems. Puget Sound Energy has prepared a King County Draft GMA Electrical Facilities Plan. According to this plan, the utility has several system improvements in progress within the Renton Planning Area that are necessary to serve forecasted load growth for the next thirty years. Puget Sound Energy's plans for future transmission lines, facilities, and upgrades will increase system capacity and reliability. Also proposed is the Aqua substation. This substation mayor may not be located within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, but in either case would likely serve residents both within and outside of the urban growth boundary. Existing SCL 4 kV lines are being replaced with a new 26 kV network. The Bryn Mawr and Skyway substations will no longer be needed and will be taken off-line when this upgrade is complete. Additionally, SCL has indicated the possibility of adding two 230 kV transmission lines from BPA's Covington Substation to South Seattle on existing transmission line corridors to serve load growth within the next twenty years. The BPA has plans to increase reliability by installing additional 500 kV circuits and 500 kV to 230 kV transformers. While these will benefit Renton, they are not within the Planning Area. The only project that BPA currently has planned for inside the Planning Area is a static V AR for the Maple Valley Station. This devic~ senses increased load and signals the capacitors to release stored energy. Conservation cl Demand Management . Conservation is one means to reduce loads, existing or projected, on the electric system. This can delay the , need for new or expanded generation and transmission facilities. System wide, Puget Sound Energy expects that conservation will yield an additional 296 average MW and 592 MW on system peak in the year 2010. Conservation programs are enacted on a utility-wide basis and regulated by the WUTC. While conservation reduces overall electrical consumption, demand-side management influences when the demand will occur. Educating consumers to modify their consumption patterns, imposing a sliding rate structure for time-of-day and for increment of energy used, or directly controlling energy use by certain customers, can all serve to spread the load throughout the day. Since electric utility systems are designed to accommodate peak loads, this method can delay the need for additional capacity. Objective U-H: Promote the availability of safe, adequate, and efficient electrical Service within the City and the remainder of its Planning Area, consistent with the utility's regulatory obligation to serve. Policy U-94. The provision of electricity to the City's Planning Area should be coordinated with local and regional purveyors to ensure the availability of electricity to meet projected growth in population and employment. XIJ-33 Policy U-9S. Encourage purveyors of electrical power to make facility improvements/additions within existing electric facility corridors where appropriate. CITY OF RENTON UTlL~TIES ~ENT 11101104 Natural Gas And Fuel Pipelines Existing Conditions -Natural Gas Background Natural gas is a mixture of hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarQon gases extracted from porous rock formations below the earth's swface. The gas makes its way from the producing fields via the interstate pipeline at high- pressures, often over -one thousand pounds per square inch (psi). Colorless and odorless as it comes off the interstate pipeline, a powerful odorant, typically mercaptan, is added for safety purposes to make leaks easier to detect. lliough a series of reduction valves, the gas is delivered to homes at pressures of from 0.25 to 2 psi. In recent decades, the residential popularity ofnaturaI gas has risen. Cleaner burning and less expensive than the alternatives, oil and electricity, it has become the fuel of choice in many households for cooking, drying clothes, and heating home and water. Natural Gas Utility Service Area Puget Sound Energy (formerly Puget Sound Energy) provides natural gas service to approximately 650,000 customers in the Puget Sound Region, including Renton and its Urban Growth Area. General Location of Natural Gas FacUities Puget Sound Energy operates under a fi"anchise agreement with the City of Renton, which allows PSE to locate facilities within the public street right-of-ways. The gas distribution system consists of a network of high-pressure mains and distribution lines that convey ~ .. natural gas throughout the Planning Area. Natural gas is provided to PSE by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, which operates a system extending from Canada to New Mexico. Two parallel Northwest Pipeline Corporation high-pressure mains enter the Planning Area south of Lake McDonald and terminate at the South Seattle Gate Station located at Talbot Road and South 22nd Street (see Figure 7-1). PSE high-pressure mains then extend to smaller lines branching-off from the primary supply mains. Through a series of smaller lines and pressure regulators the gas is delivered to consumers. PSE also operates an underground propane storage facility (Figure 7-1). The main components of the natural gas system are illustrated in Figure 7-2. Capacity of Natural Gas FacUities Although PSE serves most of Renton and its Urban Growth Area, a portion of the Planning Area, west of the Renton Municipal Airport, and straddling SR-900 is currently not served by Puget Sound Energy (refer to Figure 7-1). Provision of natural gas service to this area would only require extension ofintennediate service lines. The capacity of the system is primarily constrained by the volume of gas entering the PSE network from the Northwest Pipeline Corporation mains. Current capacity of the South Seattle Gate Station, the point of entry . for natural gas to the area, is nine million standard cubic feet per hour (seth). This can serve approximately 180,000 residential customers. The minimum pressure at which gas can be delivered is fifteen pounds per square inch (15 psi). Methods for increasing supply to a particular area include replacement of the lines, looping, installing parallel lines, and inserting higher-pressure lines into greater diameter, but lower pressure mains. XII-34 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES: lENT 1110)/04 A reserve of natural gas supply is maintained in order to respond to temporary shortfalls in the natural gas supply due to weather-driven higher demand or supply interruptions. A number of separate utilities share the facility, however, and hence it is not dedicated to the Renton Planning Area. Natural Gas System ReliabUity Since natural gas is chiefly used as a home heating fuel, denwtd rises as the outdoor temperature drops. The locally available gas supply and the capacity ofPSE's delivery system may not always be sufficient to provide product to all customers during periods of exceptional demand. Therefore, PSE has several short term, load- balancing strategies. As stated previously, PSE operates a storage facility that provides a reserve of additional gas for times of shortfall. Also, some gas customers are served under an interruptible service contract. For those times when gas resources become limited, these connections can be temporarily dropped from the system. Residential customers are always granted first priority for available gas supply. Another strategy to maintain system pressure is the looping of mains. Feeding product from both ends of a pipeline decreases the possibility oflocalized pressure drops and increases system reliability. Forecasted Conditions Puget Sound Energy predicts a growth rate of 41.2% in demand for this 20 year planning horizon. According to this assumption, demand for gas will average 1,227,562.6 cubic feet per hour for December 2010 within the Renton Planning Area. PSE has stated that they will be able to accommodate this increased demand. This will be accomplished through an upgrade of the South Seattle Gate Station to allow the entry of an additional two million seth into the system, for a total capacity of eleven million seth. The backfeed from Covington will add another three million scth and, with the current peak hour feed of one million seth from Issaquah, there will be sufficient supply capacity to serve the customer base anticipated for 2010. Proposed New or Improved FacUities Figure 7-1 shows the one proposed high pressure main required to meet the increased gas demand, which should result from the forecast growth. The ultimate placement of the line will be based on right-of-way permitting, environmental standards, coordination with other utilities and existing infrastructure placement. PSE has a policy to expand the supply system to serve additional customers. Gas connections are initiated by customer requests. Maximum capacity of the existing distribution system can be increased by the following methods: increasing distribution and supply pressures in existing lines, installing parallel mains, replacing existing with larger sized mains, looping mains, and adding district regulators from supply mains to provide additional intermediate pressure gas sources. XII-35 ~ W 0\ ;:.,. '~~ ........ Figure .7-1. NATURAL GAS FACILITIES N01!THWEST PIPELINE CORPORA nON -~xJstln9 Moln, WASHINGTON NA l\J.RAL GAS -Existing High Prtltlllr. Main, -Propo,ed High -I"rtl,ur. Molnl • 'EXI'tI~9 Fo~nltl., _ Area with no natural go, ... vice -••••••• -.---City Llmll' -•••• -•••••••••. -Urban C~owth Boundary ...................... Sphere of Influence ? ~OOO iOYoO Not.: For. graphic p,.s.nlaUan only. F'ocnltl •• are not to .cal •• E) LONG RANGE PLANNING O,D.nnlsall + !lit + IUI&oOllle, D.VI.IIHId . 24 Maroh I VV5 ~ t !. ... ~~ ~~ III ...... 10.1!1~ » e Q; ~ ~~ ~~ I o ~ ~ ~ CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES I lENT 11101104 Petroleum Fuel Pipeliues Existing Conditions Utility Service Area Olympic Pipeline Company is a joint-interest company that provides a variety of fuel oil products via a system of pipelines throughout the region. The stock is held by Atlantic Richfield Corporation (Arco), Shell and Texaco oil companies. Olympic transports oil products from the Ferndale British Petroleum (BP) refinery, the Cherry Point Arco refinery and the Anacortes Shell and Texaco refineries through R~ton to Seattle, Sea-Tac International Airport, and points south to Portland, Oregon. Olympic's Renton facilities function as a regional distribution hub, as well as supplying the local market with petroleum products. General Location of Fuel Product Pipelines and Other Facilities The Olympic Pipeline Company's facilities in the Renton Planning Area include a system of pipes, varying from 12 to 20 inches in diameter, and a central monitoring station at 2319 Lind Avenue SW. Petroleum products enter Renton via two pipes from the City's northern border, and then extend south and west to the Renton Station. From here, a 12-inch main heads north, eventually intercepting the City of Seattle Skagit Transmission Line right-of-way toward Seattle. Two parallel branches also extend westward to the Green River, at which point one line heads west to Sea-Tac Airport and one turns south to serve Tacoma and beyond. Figure 7-2 shows the pipelines within the Renton Planning Area as well as Olympic's Renton Station. Renton Station is the mbnitoring and control center for the entire pipeline network. Here, also, oil products are transferred to trucks for distribution. Capacity of Fuel Product Pipelines and Facilities The Olympic Pipeline Company cWTently carries an average of approximately 270,000 barrels of product per day, varying according to the transported material. The absolute capacity of the system is over 350,000 barrels. As the primary supplier of petroleum products to Western Washington, Olympic states that system capacity is sufficient to meet current demand. Forecasted Conditions Olympic, though not directly serving City of Renton, affirms that they can and will increase the capacity of the system to accommodate a demand commensurate with the expected population and land uses anticipated by 2020 in the Renton Planning Area. Aside from laying new pipelines, options for increasing capacity include introducing drag reducing agents to the petroleum products, increasing the horsepower of the pumps, and replacing individual sections of pipe where bottlenecks tend to occur. Objective U-I: Promote the safe transport and del~very of natural gas cmd other fuels within the Planning Area. Policy U-96. Coordinate with local and regional purveyors of natural gas for the siting of transmission lines, distribution lines, and other facilities within the Renton Planning Area. Policy U-97. Support cost effective public programs aimed at energy conservation, efficiency, and supplementing of natural gas supplies through new technology. XII-37 Policy U-98. Allow for the extension of natural gas distribution lines to and within the city limits and Urban Growth Area, provided they are consistent with development envisioned in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. ~ ~ 00 .') sou"C£. OI.~fIIC fIIIIlLIf'Il coWANY.:1Q. r Figure 7-2. PETROLEUM PRODUCT PIPELINE COL YMPIC PIPELINE COMPANY) _ .. _ •• -•• -Petro'eum Product Plpelln. • Monitoring & Control Station -------City Umlt •. _._._._.-Urban Growth Boundary _ •• _"-•. ..,.. Sphere of Influence y 0000 10100 Note: For graphic pre'''''\!ltion on'y. FocRltl •• or. nat to leal •• e LONG RANCE PLANNING O.De""leoJl • ~ • R.MaoOIll •• D.VIoII .. 1ci 2 ... "' ..... h litO , . . ~ a~ ;~. 51 ~ ~ 'j'l. = ~ =-.:= ~ =("J ~~ ~O ~ § ~ I ~ CITY OF RENTON U1UrrIF EMENT 11/01104 Policy U-99. Require that petrolewn product pipelines are operated and maintained in such a manner that protects public safety, especially Telecommunications where those facilities are located in the Aquifer Protection Area. Telecommunications: Conventional Telephone, FJ"ber Optic. Cable, CeBuJar Telephone, and Cable Television Existing Conditions -Conventional (Wirelinellandline) Telephone Utility Service Area -Conventioruil Telephone Service to Renton and its Planning Area is provided by Qwest Communications, Inc (formerly US West). Qwest is an investor-owned corporation, whose holdings include companies serving regional, national, and international markets, including telephone services to 25 million customers in 14 western states. The subsidiaries include directory publishing, cellular mobile communications ·and paging, personal communications networks, cable television, business communications systems sales and serviCe, communications software, and fiilancial services. All cities within the State of Washington fall within a particular Local Access and Transport Area (LATA). These LATAs are telephone exchange areas that define·the area in which Qwest is permitted to transport telecommunicati9ns traffic. There are 94 exchanges within Washington where Qwest provides dial tone and other local services to customers. General Location oj Conventioruil Telephone Facilities Telepbone service systems within Renton and its Planning Area include switching stations, trunk: lines, and distribution lines. Switching stations, also called "Central Offices" (COs), switch calls within and between line exchange groupings. These groupings are addressed uniquely by an area code and the first three digits of a telephone nwnber. Each line grouping can carry up to 10,000 nwnbers. Renton has 14 of these groupings. The CO serving Renton is located in a building on 3rd Avenue South within downtown Renton. Four main "feeder" cable routes generally extend from each CO, heading to the north, south, east, and west (Figure 8-1). Connected to these main feeder routes are branch feeder routes. The branch feeder routes connect with thousands of local loops that provide dial tone to every subscnDer. These facilities may be aerial or buried, copper or fiber. Local loops can be used for voice or data transmission (such as facsimile . machines or computer modems). A variety oftecbnologies are utiUzed including electronics,..digital transmission, fiber optics, and other means to provide multiplevoiceldata paths over a single wire. Methods of construction are determined by costs and local regulations. Xll-39 ~ lOUR", UI 'ICIT, 1'~ Figure 8-1. US WEST TELEPHONE FAClLlTlgS ----,--MClin F'Heler • CwltrCII OfflQ' --------Cit)' Limit' --,-,--,-UrbCln Growth Boundor)' -.. _,,-,,_ .. -Sphere of In.ft,!lnc. 9 e~oo~ 10YOO Not.: F'or 9f'ophlc pr ••• ntotlon onl),. Focn'U .. art not to IQol •• e LONG IWIG!: PUNNING O.llIDnl.on • ~ • It.WaaOnle, D.VlalHIcI 24 "' ..... h Itgl d ~ l ii g qo I'D ~ ~ ~ ~. ~§ ~~ ! ~ ~ CITY OF RENTON UTILITIF ,EMENT 11101/04 Capacity of Con ... entional Telephone Facilities Capacity of a CO is a function of the type of switch employed. Advances in technology and the use of digital transmission provide for increases in switch capacity to meet growth. Reliability of the Con ... entional Telephone System Telephone service is very reliable with the exception of extraordinary circumstances such as severe weather events or natural disasters. In many cases, the system may still be operational, but the volume of calls being placed to and from the affected area creates shortfalIs in service. In Renton, the Inauguration Day windstorm of January 1993 resulted in some system outages. Generally, following a catastrophic event, public telephone systems would be restored before service to individuals and businesses. Forecasted Conditions -Conventional Telephone Forecasted Capacity of Con ... entional Telephone Facilities Ample capacity exists in the Renton CO to·accommodate growth projected in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Recent technological advancements have resulted in consolidation of eqUipment at the Renton CO. Several additional floors are available in the building housing the CO for future expansion of the system. Line facilities within the Planning Area would require some upgrading, but no new buildings would be needed to meet projected growth . . Regulations governing telecommunications require that the purveyor provide adequate telecommunication service on demand. Upgrading facilities and constructing new facilities accommodate growth. New technology is employed to enhance service, when available and practical. Enhance~nts necessary to maintain adequate capacity are determined through regular evaluation of the system. Qwest has confirmed that they will be able to extend timely service to all current and new subscribers anticipated in the population forecasts for the Renton Plamiing Area. Existing Conditions -Fiber Optic Telecommunication systems utility Service Area -Fiber Optic Telecommunications The Starcom Service Corporation, a Washington corporation of the Canadian Starcom International Optics Corporation ofVancouvet, B.C. plans to locate facilities within the City of Renton Planning Area. The system is a "carriers carrier" and is not intended to connect With individual users in the City of Renton. Services are to be leased to other telecommunications purveyors. The cable based telecommunications system will provide a telecommunication link between Vancouver B.C. and Seattle. General Location of Existing Fiber Optic Telecommunications Facilities As of this writing, no Starcom fiber optic facilities are in place in Renton. However, the .company is currently engaged in the permitting required to bury cable within the lOO.foot wide Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, about four feet below ground. The line generally follows the eastern shore of Lake Washington from the northern city limits to the Boeing facility, and then roughly parallels 1-405 until it intersects with 1-5. Xll41 CITY OF RENTON UTILITIE 11101104 Forecasted Conditions -Fiber Optic Telecommunications Systems Forecasted Capacity of Fiber Optic Telecommunications Facilities According to Starcom, the proposed fiber optic cable and latest technology regenerative equipment will provide capacity to meet growth envisioned in the City's Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Conditions -Cellular Telephone Background -Cellular Telephone Cellular system technology works on the principle of reusing radio frequencies. The same radio frequency can be reused as long as service areas do not overlap. In this way, shorter antennas can be used and located on top of existing structures, rather than constructing freestanding towers. Siting" of cellular facilities depends on how the system is configured. The cell sites must be designed so that channels can be reused, because the FCC allocates aIimited number of channels to the cellular telephone industry. As cell sites were initially developed, a few large cells were established using hilltops or tall buildings to site transmission.and receiving antennas. This allowed for maximum coverage of the large cell. Clusters of smaller cells have since replaced the larger configuration, diminishing the need for larger anteimas. Thus, shorter antennas and poles provide coverage for the smaller cell sites. This division of cells will continue to occur as the demand for cellular service grows. EventtialIy, cell sites will be pl~ced less than . two miles apart with antennas situated on poles about 6O-feet high, or the height of a four-story building. Cell sites are located within the center of an area defined by a grid system. Topography and other built features can affect signal transmission, so the cell is configured to locate the cell site at an appropriate place to provide the best transmission/reception conditions. Sub-ceIls are sometimes created because natural features such as lakes, highways or inaccessible locations prevent siting within the necessary one-mile radius from the ideal grid point. Preferred cell site locations include: existing broadcast or communications towers, water towers, high rise buildings, vacant open land appropriately zoned that could be leased or purchased, and areas with low population densities to diminish aestl:tetic impacts. When new antenna structures are required for the cell site, monopoles or lattice structures are often utilized. Monopoles generally range in height from 60 feet to 150 feet. The base of the monopole varies between 40 to 72 inches in diameter. Monopoles are generally more aesthetically acceptable, but changes in the system such as lowenng of antennas are not possible without major changes. Lattice structures are either stabilized by guy wires or self-supported. Generally, the maximum height of a lattice.structure:~.I~~tobetween " "ZOO"8iid250Jeet." Guyed towers can be built to accommodate a greater height, bUt the guy wires can pose navigational problems to migrating birds and aircraft. In addition, the taller towers often are perceived to have more severe aesthetic impacts. All structures require that a six to eight foot separation occur between antennas for signal reception. This is termed "system diversity" and is needed on the reception antennas in order to receive an optimal signal from the mobile telephone. Xll-42 CITY OF RENTON UfILITIF EMENT 11/01/04 utility Service Area -CeUular Telephone Cellular telephone service is licensed by the FCC for operation in Metropolitan Service Areas (MSA) and Rural Service Areas (RSA). The FCC grants two licenses within each service area. One of those licenses is reserved for the local exchange telephone company (also referred to as the wireline carrier). Qwest Cellular (NewVector) holds the wireline licenses in the Tacoma, Seattle, Bellingham, and Spokane MSA. The non- wire line licenses in these areas, and also in the Yakima MSA is held by McCaw Cellular Communications (Cellular One). Recently, Cellwar One merged with AT&T. Existing Capacity of CeUular Telephone Facilities Forecasting for cellular facilities is accomplished using a two-year horizon. Information'regarding current and future predicted number of subscribers is considered by the purveyors to be proprietary, and no data was furnished in this regard. However, statewide customer counts total approximately 250,000. with the number anticipated to increase to several million by the year 2010. It is predicted that by the period covering.the years 2005 to 2010, approximately twenty percent (20%) of the population in Washington State will be served. Reliabilit;y of Cellular Telephone Facilities Cellular communications are considered to be more reliable than conventional telephone systems because they can (;ontinue to operate during electrical power outages. Each cell site is equipped with a back-up power supply, either a battery or generator, or combination of the two. Severe weather events or natural disaster . conditions have validated the use of cellular telephones on numerous occasions throughout the country. When conventional telephone systems fail, or telephone lines are jammed, cellular calls have a better chance of being completed. Forecasted Conditions -Cellular Telephone Future Capacity of CeUular Telephone Facilities As previously stated, forecasting for new cellular facilities uses a relatively narrow time frame of two years. Expansion is demand driven. Raising the density of transmission/reception equipment to accommodate additional subscribers. cell splitting, follows rather than precedes increases in local system load. Therefore. cellular companies must maintain a short response time and a tight planning horizon. ·Existing Conditions -Cable Television Background -Cable Television Cable television or CATV (Community Antenna Television) originated with small-scale attempts to obtain a clear television signal in areas too remote or too obstructed to receive one via the airways. Dating from the . 19408. the early systems were constructed of surplus wiring arid basic electronic hardware. Subsequent technological innovations in signal transmission have increased the number of available channels and permitted the emergence of new players in the television broadcast industry. The inultiplicity of channels and the ability to direct the signal to specific addresses have opened up both niche and global markets to information and entertainment purveyors. In addition to the provisions of cable television services. advancements in technology have allowed the current purVeyor to provide high speed access to Internet services with the provision of additional features expected as market demands dictate. XII-43 ~ SQUfICEI ITAllCOM, '"3' (" jt:~~::.~~: ~",." .. Fi9ure 8-2. PROPOSED FlBEROPTIC CABLE -----StorComF"lbll'optle Cobl. ------------'Clty LImIt. -----.-Urban Growth Boundary -.. -.• -•• -.. -.. -.. -Sphere <..' Innu.nce 9 15000 10YOO Notr. I"or graphIc pr'lenta\lon only. Foenltl •• are not to acal •• O.D.nnllon . e LONG liANG! PLANNtNG • !R • 1I,Io(&00nl •• D.Vltl1 •• 1d 24 ""'"10 10.6 ~ l~ ~1' ... . .g~ ~ Q ~ §§ i ~ ~ z I ~ CITY OF RENTON 1ITIL1TIE 11101104 :MENT utility Service Area -Cable Television The current purveyor holds a cable television franchise to serve the City of Renton. The service area includes the entire incorporated area of the City, expanding with annexations. All residential neighborhoods within the City are currently served. Service is still unavailable in some commercial areas due to market conditions, which presently preclude line extension. General Description and Location of Cable Telerision Facilities The current purveyor's facilities supplying Renton with cable television service are composed of a receiver, a headend, a trunk system and a feeder system. The receiver and the headend, which amplifies, processes and combines signals for distributi()n by the cable network, are located north of Burien, Washington. The signal is then transmitted via low-power microwave to a site in Kent, Washington, where it enters the trunk system. Amplifiers placed at intervals along the cables maintain signal strength. The amplifiers also serve as junction points where the feeder system taps into the trunk cables. Service drops then provide the final connection from the feeder line to the subscriber. Generally following street rights-of-way, the present network encompasses residential neighborhoods to the east, north, and south. The unserved portion of Renton generally includes the commercial and industrial areas located in the Green River Valley. ~ of Cable Television Facilities A cable system is not subject to the same capacity constraints as other utilities. Providing and maintaining the capacity to serve is the contractual responsibility of the utility. According to the City's franchiSe agreement, the purveyor must make service available to all portions of the franchise area. In some circumstances, costs associated with a line extension may be bome by the service recipient. The current purveyor offers various packages including as many as 130+ active analog and digital television channels plus nearly 40 digital music channels, and has the capacity to greatly increase those numbers as well as the other types of services that they may decide to offer in the future. . Forecasted Conditions -Cable Television According to the provisions of the current purveyor's franchise agreement with the City, the company must continue to make cable service available upon request, when reasonable, for any property within the current or future city limits. Therefore, under the current terms of this franchise, the current purveyor would be . required to provide cable service to projected growth within the City and the remainder of the Planning Area. Objective U.J: Promote the timely and orderIyexpansion of all forms of telecommunications services within the City and the remainder of its Planning Area. Policy U-lOO. Require that the sitiIig and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-IOI. Require that cellular communication structures and towers be " sensitively sited and designed to diminish aesthetic XII-45 impacts, and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical. Policy U-I02. Pursue the continued development of a wireless Internet communication grid throughout the City for the use and enjoyment of Renton residents, employees, and visitors. CITY OF RENTON UI'ILITIES 1l/0ll04 MENT Policy U-t03. Encourage healthy competition among telecommunication systems for provision of current and future telecommunication services. \ Xll-46 Amendment #13. Review of narrative in the Comprehensive Plan Glossary to incorporate new terms adopted as part of the 2004 GMA Update. GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01/04 IX. GLOSSARY accessory housing: dwellings constructed within an existing single family horne, usually for use as a rental unit. An "accessory unit" is a separate dwelling, including kitchen, sleeping, and bathroom facilities: Also known as "mother-in-law apartment." . activity node: an area of clustered higher density land uses. adaptive use: the utilization of an older building that is no longer suited for its original purpose, but may be modified and used for a different purpose such as housing. A common example is the conversion of older public school buildings to rental or condominium apartments. affordable housing: housing that meets the needs of a household earning at or below eighty percent (80010) of COWlty median income (adjusted for household size), for which the household pays no more than thirty percent (300/0) of its gross income toward housing costs, including utilities. aquifer: Groundwater-bearing geologic formation or formations that .contain enough saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells. aquifer protection area (AP A): Zone of capture and recharge area for a well or well field owned or operated by the City of Renton. aquifer protection zones: Zones of an AP A designated to provide graduated levels of aquifer protection. Each AP A may be subdivided by the City into two aquifer protection zones. Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City of Renton and the 365- day groundwater travel time contour. Zone 2: The land area situated between the 365-day groWldwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a well or well field owned or operated by the City of Renton. Protected AP A designated Zone 2: If the aquifer supplying water to a well, well field, or spring is naturally protected by overlying geologic strata, the City. of Renton may choose not to subdivide an APA into two zones. In such a case, the entire APA will be designated as Zone 2. arterial, miDor: right-of-way that serves as a distributor of traffic from a principal arterial to less . iJwortant streets, directly to secondary traffic generators such as community shopping areas and high schools; and serves trips between neighborhoods within a community. Minor streets are more intensive than collectors, but less intensive than principal arterials. arterial, principal: right-of-way that connects regional arterials to major activity areas and directly to traffic destinations. Principal arterials are the most intensive arterial classification, serve major traffic generators such as the urban Center, major shopping and commercial districts, and move traffic from community to community. basin (Water Utility): An area defined by the natural features of the landscape such that any flow of water in said area will flow toward one low point. basin (Surface Water Utility): An area drained by a river and its tnbutaries. Page) ofl2 GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01104 Best Management Practices (Surface Water Utility): Conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that: a. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, toxins, and sediment; b. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands; and c. Include allowing proper use and storage of fertilizers/pesticides. bicycle facility: an improvement designed to facilitate accessibility by bicycle, including bicycle trails, bicycle lanes, storage facilities, etc. boulevards: typically a broad thoroughfare that is often separated by a landscaped median or center divider that has potential to fimction as linear open space. Boulevard designation would imply a higher priority for landscape, sidewalk, or trail improvements. capacity: the space toacconnnodate population growth or increases in employment or residential uses as determined by the methodology used in the Buildable Lands program. c.apacity problem (wastewater utility): When flow rates exceed what the facility is designed to convey. capital facilities: as a general definition, s1J;"uctures, improvements, pieces of equipment or other major assets, including land. City capital facilities are provided by and for public purposes and services. cell (Cellular Telephone Service): The geographic cellular telephone coverage area, approximately 2 to 10 miles in radius, served by a low-powered transmitters. cell site (Cellular Telephone Service): A connnunications site that includes the cellular transmitting and receiving antennas, cellular base station radios, and interconnecting equipment This equipment is necessary to route cellular telephone system through the mobile telephone switching office and connect to the conventional wireline telephone network. cell splitting (Cellular Telephone Service): The process of dividing a larger cell into several smaller units, to provide additional channels within the same cell. Chemicals (Surface Water Utility): All "Regulated Substances" as defined by the City of Renton in the Aquifer Protection Ordinance(APe)"~:':::~-7C:-:"-~··' circuit: A set of conductors through which an electric current is intended to flow. Also called a "line". cluster development: a development design technique that concentrates buildings in specific areas on a site to allow the remaining land to be used for recreation, common open space, and preservation of environmentally critical areas. collocation: the concept of placing public facilities at or near the same location to provide increased public access. One example is the collocation of a public school with a connnunity center. commercial use: a business or employment activity or other enterprise that is carried out for profit on a property by the owner, lessee, or licensee. Page2ofl2 ., \ GLOSSARY Rev.ll/Ol/04 community: a subarea of the city consisting of residential institutional and connnercialland uses and sharing a connnon identity (In Renton, for example, the Highlands). community separator: See "Urban Separator" [REPLACE WTI1I URBAN SEPARATOR] commute trip: a trip made from an employee's residence to a worksite for a regularly scheduled work day. concurrency: a Growth Management Act requirement that transportation facilities and other infrastructure, such as water and sewer, needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (''LOS'') standards, are available within six years of development at the time of occupancy or within a specified time period. conductor: A wire or cable intended to cany electric power, supported by poles, towers or other structures. neighborhood commercial: small connnercial areas providing limited retail goods and services such as groceries and dry cleaning for nearby customers. Countywide PlaDniDg PoHdes: as required by GMA, the King County Council adopted a series of policies that embody a vision of the future of ICing County. These policies (along with the Framework Policies) are intended to guide the development of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. critical areas: wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded, and geologically hazardous areas regulated by the City of Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance. demand (Water Utility): The quantity of water obtained from the water supply source over a period of time to meet the needs of domestic, commercial, industrial and public use, and also fire fighting water, system losses, and miscellaneous other water uses. Demands are normally discussed in terms of flow: rate, such as million gallons per day (mgd) or gallons per minute (gpm). The flow rates can be descn"bed in terms of a volume of water delivered during a certain time period. Flow rates pertinent to the analysis and design of water systems are: Average Dally DeDWld (ADD). The total amount of water delivered.to the system in a year divided by the number of days in the year. This is further divided into average residential (ADDR), commercial (ADDC), industrial (ADDl), and unaccounted for (ADDN) demands. Maximum Month Demand. The total amount of water delivered to the system during the month of maximum water use . . . Peak Hour Demand. The amount. of water delivered to the system in the hour of maximum use usually occwring during the maximum day. density: the number of swelling units per net acre. Renton bases its density requirements on net density, in which environmentally sensitive areas, public rights-of-ways, and private access easements are subtracted from gross acreage before density is calculated. density bonus: incentive provided to a developer of housing, in exchange for meeting a specified condition or conditions such as quality of design or provision of a certain type of housing unit or other use. Page 3 of12 GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01/04 detention/retention facilities: Facilities designed either to hold runoff for a short period of time and then release it to the point of discharge at a controlled rate or to hold water for a considerable length of time and then consume it by evaporation, plants or infiltration into the grotmd. development standards: in respect to any development, fixed requirements or standards imposed by ordinance and regulation. In Renton, development standards are included in the Renton Municipal Code Title N, "Development Regulations." duplex: a residential building containing two attached dwelling units tmder one roof, located on a single lot. In the Renton Municipal Code, such units are called "flats." dwelling unit: one or more rooms located within a structure, designedas and arranged for living acconunodations, and occupied or intended to be occupied by not more than one family and perinitted roomers and boarders, independent from any other family. The existence of a food preparation area and sanitation facilities within the room or rooms shall be evidence of the existence of a dwelling unit. Donnitories, institutional housing, and other group quarters are not COtmted as dwelling units. equalizing storage (Water Utility): Equalizing storage provides the difference between the capacity of the sources· of supply and the maximum demand rate (generally considered the highest use hour of the hottest day of the year). In water systems which service a large number of residences, the demand for water varies hourly and supply facilities are sized to meet the average rate of the maximum day demand . . The maximum hour demand rate is typically about twice the average maximum day rate. If equalizing storage is not available to provide water during peak hours, the supply facilities and major pipelines would have to be sized for the maximum hour demands. However, during non-peak hours, much of the supply capacity would not be used. Instead, equalizing storage facilities are used to make up the difference between maximum hour and maximum day demand. The stored water is released when demand exceeds the supply, and replenished when the supply exceeds demand. In this way supply facilities and pipelines can be smaller than if equalizing storage is not available, and, therefore, lower costs for supply and pipeline facilities are obtained. feeder system (Cable Television Service): The line that carries the signal from a trunk line amplifier to the subscriber's service drop. fiber optic cable: A multi-layered cable composed of fine strands of glass fibers capable of transmitting large quantities of coded data by means of modulated light rather than electronic signals. It is preferred as a medium for television signals as it can carry more signals with less dissipation. fireOow: The rate of flow of water required during fire fighting. rue storage: Reservoir capacity required to meet fire flows. force main: A sanitary sewer main that utilizes artificial means (pressure) to transport waste. A force main usually moves sewage from a lower elevation to or across a higher elevation. A lift station typically pumps sewage from one basin through a force main to another basin. functional plans: city departments prepare planning docU1I)ents that establish long-range goals and objectives to guide their operations and capital development requests. These plans, referred to as functional plans, typically represent the ideal goals for the dq>art:ment in providing urban services and facilities. Page4ofl2 GLOSSARY Rev.lt/Ol/04 gate station (Natural Gas Service): The point at which gas from Northwest Pipeline enters the Puget Sound Energy system, where oderant is added for safety, pressure is reduced to 200 to 300 psi, and the gas is metered. gateway: a point of entry that identifies a transition between different land uses, landscapes and jurisdictional boundaries and enhances a feeling of anticipation and arrival for the apProaching traveler. geologically hazardous: areas which may be prone to one or more of the following conditions - erosion, flooding, landslides, coal mine hazards, or seismic activity. gravity sewer: A sanitary sewer main installed with the intention of utilizing gravity or "down hill flow" to move the waste. The maximmn capacity for a gravity sewer is the volume of flow that can be carried in a sewer at a depth to diameter ratio of 0.70. greenbelt: an area intended for open space, recreation, very low density residential uses, agriculture, geographic relief between land uses, or other low intensity uses. Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990: a law passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1990. and amended periodically thereafter that mandates comprehensive planning in designated counties and cities statewide. (RCW 36.70A) hazardous waste: Any wastes included in the State of Washington, Department of Ecology Dangerous Waste Regulations, chapter 173-303 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAG). headend (Cable Television Service): The electronic equipment that amplifies and processes television signals from all sources. After being assigned a channel, the signals leave via the trunk system. heavy industrial: a type of land use including manufacturing processes using raw materials, extractive land uses, and any industrial uses that typically are incompatIole with adjacent uses due to noise, odor, toxic chemicals, or other activities which could pose a hazard to public health and safety. high-occupancy vehicle (HOV): generally, a vehicle carrying two or more people; including a carpool, vanpool, or bus. housing unit: any dwelling unit, housekeeping unit, guest room, dormitory, or single-occupancy unit impact fees: a fee imposed on developers to pay for the community's costs of providing services to a new development Such charges are an extension of efforts to make new development pay for their impact on the community. Impact fees may also involve some effort to predict the total cost of the . _::_ .. ___ . -_--... -_community for servicing the new development and relate it to the revenues ~t will be.produced by the development once it is completed. impervious surface: A hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle lIDder natural conditions prior to development, and/or a hard surface that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present lIDder natural conditions prior to development. Connnon examples include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, decks, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam, or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of storm water. industrial: a type of land use characterized by production, manufacturing, distribution or fabrication activities. PageS of12 GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01/04 inr.n development: development consisting of either construction on one or more lots in an area that is mostly developed, or new construction between two existing structures. inf"dllaousing: construction of new dwelling Wlits on vacant or Wlderutilized parcels in built-up areas. Because utilities, transit, and other infrastructure are already in place, the costs and impacts of new units are generally lower than for development on raw land. infiltration (Wastewater Utility): Infiltration is the entrance of groWld water into the sanitary sewer system through cracks, pores, breaks, and defective joints in the sewer piping network. .' inflow! . Inflow refers to direct flow of storm water into sanitary sewer systemstbrough-hookups from storm water collection facilities and illegal connections. infrastructure: the Wlderlying foWldation, or basjc framework of a city. The system of essential services, utilities, public and connnunity facilities, e.g. water, sewerage, power, roads, schools, health facilities etc., which are necessary to enable urban development to fimction. institution: a structure (or structures) and related groWldsused by organizations providing educational, medical, social, and recreational services to the community such as hospitals, vocational Or fine arts schools, child care centers, whether operated for nonprofit or profit-making purposes; and nonprofit organizations such as colleges and Wliversities, elementary and secondary schools, community centers and clubs, private clubs, religious facilities, museums, and institutes for advanced study. intensive office: mid to high-rise office development including structured parking typica11y located in areas with regional transportation access. intermediate pressure (ip) distribution main: Underground lines varying from 1.25 to 6 inches in diameter. Pressure averages 35 psi. jobslbousing balance: a term representing the ratio between jobs and housing within a specified area. The jobs/housing balance can influence housing costs and transportation demand. land use zoning: traditionally, a technical or physical approach to the segregation of incompatible land uses, such as residential and industrial use, through systems of land use and development controls. More recently, the techniques have emphasized reinforcing position relationships between compatible land uses such as residential and neighborhood commercial. The contemporary approach also emphasizes the close relationship between transportation and land use to more effectively respond to accessibility, reduction of infrastructure costs, urban design, air, noise, and water pollution, energy conservation, and conservation of resource lands. landfill: A disposal facility, or part of a facility, where solid waste is permanently placed in or on land and which is not a land spreading disposal facility. large scale multi-family: a residential building, or group of buildings that contain more than four dwelling units in each building. level-of-serviee (LOS): a qualitative rating of how well some unit of transportation supply (e.g., street, intersection, sidewalk, bikeway, transit route, ferry) meets its cmrent or projected d~d. lift station: A sewage pumping facility that consists of a wet well for colIecting wastewater, mechanical equipment such as pumps, valves and piping, electrical and control equipment, and a force main. The Page 6 ofl2 -. GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01/04 , maximum capacity for a lift station is equal to the peak, wet weather flow ~t the largest pump within the lift station has been designed to convey. Ught industrial: a type ofland use including small scale or less intensive production, manufacturing, distribution or fabricating activities. Some office activities and supporting convenience retail activities may also be included. looping main (Natural Gas Service): A main which Connects to a supply line at both ends, thereby providing an alternate route for natural gas to travel to an area needing additional supply. manufactured laousing: a broad term including mobile homes, modular homes, and other "factory builV!heusing. The main distinction between manufactured homes and site-built homes is that manufactured homes are created in one or more parts away from the site, and then transported to it. "Red Seal" manufactured homes are built to HUD standards, with the chassis included as a permanent part of the home, although the axles must be removed when the home is installed. These homes, however, are built so that they may be placed on a permanent foundation. "Gold Seal" modular homes are constructed in a factory in several pieces that may be smaller or less complete than the pieces of a "Red Seal" manufactured \lome. Gold Seal homes are built to the specifications of the Uniform Building Code, and are placed on a permanent fOlmdation, similar to a "stick-built" home. Unlike Red Seal homes, the chassis for transportation is not a permanent part of the home. Mobile homes, as opposed to manufactured or modular homes, are typically located in established mobile home parks and were built ~fore HUD standards for manufactured housing went into effect June 15, 1976. master plan: a specific land use plan focused on a particular site that identifies site access and general improvements and is intended to guide growth and development on the site over a number of years. Metro: Metro is a county-wide agency run by Metropolitan King County that provides regularly scheduled public transit service (both express and local service), park and ride lots, vanpools, ride- sharitig, and customized service to meet people with special needs. Metro is also a regional sewage treatment agency charged with the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage from the City of Renton and much of King County. mhiimum density: a develOpJilent standard that sets the least amount of density permitted in a residential zone and results in a more efficient use of urban land than might otherwise be attained through market forces. mitigation (Surface Water Utillty): Avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse wetland impacts. Mitigation, in the following order of preference, is: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate teclmology, or by taking deliberate steps to avoid or reduce impacts; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; . e. Compensating for the impact by restoring or providing substitute resources or environments; Page 7 ofl2 GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01104 f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. mixed use: the presence ofmore than one category ofuse in a structure or development project, for example, a mixture of residential units and retail or offices in the same building or if in separate buildings, in close proximity to one another. mode: types of transportation available for use, such as a bicycle, an automobile, or a bus. mod~spnt: the proportion of total persons using a particular mode of travel. In this document, mode- split generally refers to the percentage of people using public transportation as opposed to other motorized modes. multi-family use: a structure or portion of a structure containing two or more dwelling units. multi-modal: referring to accessibility by a variety of travel modes, typically pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and automobile modes, but may also include water and air transport modes. natural gas: For the most part methane, a naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and non- hydrocarbon gases found in porous geologic formations beneath the earth's surface, often in association with petroleum. net density: a calculation of the number of housing units that would be allowed on a property after sensitive areas, public streets, and private access easements are subtracted from the gross area (gross acres minus streets, easements, and sensitive areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). This calculation applies to residential uses only. <." Nort1awest Pipeline:. Interstate pipeline providing gas to Puget Sound Energy. Pressure varies from 600 to 900 psi in two parallel pipes, 26 and 30 inches in diameter. off-site release rates (Surface Water Utility): As a result of development, the peak release rate of water from the developed property during the design storm. on-street parking: parking spaces in the rights-of-way. open space: any area of land, or water which provides physical or visual relief from the developed environment Open space may be essentially unimproved and set aside, designated or reserved for public use or enjoyment, or for the private use and enjoyment of adjacent property owners. Open space may also consist of lDldeveloped or developed areas including urban plazas, parks, pedestrian corridors, landscaping, pastures, woodlands, greenbelts, wetlands, and other natural areas or street rights-of-way which provide visual relief within developed areas. The term does not include driveway, parking lots, or other surfaces designed for vehicular travel. outfall: The point, location, or structure where wastewater or drainage discharges from a sewer, drain, or other conduit. P-l Channel: An existing channel in the lower Green River Valley that transports the surface water flows of Springbrook Creek to the Black River Pump Station. peak flow (wastewater utility): The maximum amount of sewage, either actual or estimated, that must be transported through the system in a given time (usually in gallons per minute). Peak flow is usually Page 8 ofl2 . '.~ GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01104 measured or calculated during the wettest time of the year when rain and high groWId water add inflow and infiltration to the nonnal flow of the system at the time of day when domestic use is the greatest. peak hour: one-hour interval within the peak period when travel demand is usually highest, e.g. 7:30- 8:30 a.m. and 4:30-5:30 p.m. pedestrian-orientated: a type of development where the location and access to buildings, types ofuses pennitted on the street level, and design of building facades are based on the needs of people on foot. pedestrian facility: an improvement designed to facilitate accessibility by foot or wheelchair, including sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, overpasses and undercrossings, etc. pipeliDe: Buried pipe systems (including all pipe, pipe joints, fittings, valves, manholes, sumps, and appurtenances that are in contact with the substance being transported) utilized for the conveyance of regulated substances. Pipelines include, but are not limited to, sanitary sewers, side sewers, leachate pipelines, and product pipelines, such as petroleum. Planning Area: A geographic area as specifically defined on a map in a comprehensive plan that is a logical area for expansion of the system. Conversion of a planning area to a utility service area requires King COWIty approval of an amendment to a comprehensive plan. Potential Annexation Area (P AA): The area within the Urban Growth Area that is not already iricorporated as a city and is designated for future annexation by specific cities. . pre-development levels (Surface Water Utmty): The rate of flow WIder a design storm occurrence that would occur in absence of the planned development. pressure zone (water utility): A water system subsection operating from one source at a cornmon hydraulic elevation. public facilities: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreational facilities, schools and public buildings. public works: The City of Renton's Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Department. recyclables (Solid Waste Utility): Newspaper, uncoated mixed paper, aluminum, glass and metal, food and beverage containers, Polyethylene terepthalate (PET #1) plastic bottles, High Density Polyethylene (HDPE #2) plastic bottles, and such other materials that the City and contractor determine to be recyclable.------ rezoning: rezoning is a change in the designation or boundaries of property as shown on the Official Zoning Map and defined in Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code. Rezoning is a legislative act and can be legal only if enacted by the governing body. Rezoning can take two forms: 1) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (revision or modification of the zoning text and citywide map), or 2) a change in the zoning classification of a particular parcel or parcels, without a change in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. rights-of-way: the rights-of-way is the right to pass over or otherwise use designated property. It usually refers to a strip of land legally established for public use by pedestrians, vehicles, or utilities. Page90f12 GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01104 runoff: that portion of precipitation that flows over land surface and enters a natural drainage system or constrUcted storm sewer system during and immediate following a storm. rural area: a sparsely developed area located outside of the Urban Growth Area, where the land is undeveloped or primarily used for agricultural, forestry,resource extraction, very low density residential uses, or open space purposes. sanitary sewer: A piping system that carries liquid and waterborne wastes from residences, connnercial buildings, industrial plants, and. institutions, together with minor quantities of grOWld, storm, and surface waters that are not admitted intentionally. SEPA: See State Environmental Policy Act. service area: A geographic area within which service to customers is available as specifically defined on a map in a utilities service plan and approved by King Co1Dlty. service drop (Cable Television Service): Smaller diameter cable that nms from a feeder line to the subscriber's television. side sewer: In plumbing, the extension from the building drain to the public sewer or other place of disposal. Also called house connection or side sewer (private). A side sewer stub is that portion of the . side sewer between the collector sewer and the individual property line. siogle-occupant vehicle (SOV): a vehicle carrying only one person. solid waste: a general term for discarded materials destined for disposal, but not discharged to a sewer or to the atmosphere. special benefit districts: subareas of a connntmity designated by city ordinance to assess payments for construction or installation of public facilities which primarily benefit the property owners within the district. special needs .ousing: this category refers to housing that is provided for low income or indigent persons and, where applicable, their dependents who, by virtue of disability or other personal factors, face serious impediments to independent living and who require special assistance and services in order to sustain appropriate housing on a pennanent, long-term or transitional basis. State EnvirolUDental Policy Act (SEPA): the state law passed in 1971 requiring state and local agencies to consider environmental impacts in the decision-making process. storm sewer or storm drain: a sewer that carries storm water and surface water, street wash and other wash waters, or drainage, but excludes domestic wastewater and industrial wastes. storm water: water originating from precipitation, surface nmoff, shallow gr01D1d water, or other drainage that does not include domestic wastewater or industrial wastes. strip commercial: an area occupied by businesses along an arterial street, located in one-story structures or platted lots and/or small shopping centers arranged in a line and set back from the street to allow front of store parking lots with individual draivewayentrances and indivisual parking. structured parking: vehicle parking within a building having one or more stories. Page 10 of12 ,",-_oj GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01104 surface parking: open lots or grounds with at-grade vehicle parking facilities. townhouse: a form of ground-related housing where individual dwelling units are attached along at least one common wall to at least one other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof. transfer of development rights (TDRs): a program in which the 1.Ulused portion of a "sending" . . property's zoned capacity-one of the separable rights of property-is sold to the developer of a . "receiving" site, who is allowed to add the capacity to the zoned limit of that site. transfer station: permanent, fixed, supplemental collection and transportation facility, used by persons and route collection vehicles to deposit collected solid waste from off-site into a larger transfer vehicle for transport to a solid waste handling facility. Transfer stations may also include recycling facilities and compactionlbaling systems. transit: public transportation by public bus, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail transport, but not ferries or vanpools. transportation demand management (TDM): refers to developing policies plus public and private programs to manage the demand placed on transportation supply. IDM measures are frequently directed toward increasing the use of transit and carpools. transportation systems management (TSM): accommodating transportation demand by using the existing supply more efficiently and by emphasizing lower cost improvements that can be implemented quickly. For example, converting a general purpc:>se traffic lane into a transitway might increase the person-carrying capacity of a highway more easily and quickly than widening the highway for additional traffic lanes. trunk. system (Cabel Television Service): The cables that carry signals from the headend to the feeder lines. Since the signal loses strength as it travels down the cable, a series or cascade of amplifiers, located at intervals along its length, boost signal strength. nndeveloped rights-of-way: any undeveloped portion of a strip of land legally established for the use of pedestrians, vehicles, or utilities. upzoning: a change in the zoning classification of land to a classification allowing more intensive development, such as a change from single family to multi-family. urban center: defmed by the Countywide Planning Policies, recognized by the Puget Sound Regional .-"Council, and so designated by City Council Resolution, the Urban Center is an area of Renton with existing and/or future high employment concentration, residential use at high density, and accessibility. These areas promote non-SOV mobility, reduce sprawl, and maximize benefits of existing public investment. urban growth area: area designated by the City and endorsed by the C01.Ulty for development over the next twenty years as required by the Growth Management Act. Urban growth patterns should not occur outside these areas. urban separator: corridors of natural areas or very low density rural development between higher density urban areas. Examples include lands useful for open space, wildlife habitat, recreation trails and Page 11 ofl2 GLOSSARY Rev. 11/01/04 connection of critical areas, agricultural uses, or lands which have a rural character. Also sometimes referred to as ''Community Separator." utilities: All lines and facilities related to the provision, distribution, collection, transmission, or disposal of water, storm and sanitary sewage, oil, gas, power, infonnation, telecommunication and telephone cable, and includes facilities for the generation of electricity. VJsi~D 2020: Puget Sound Regional CoWlcil's 1990 adopted regional comprehensive vision that describes linking high-density residential and employment geJ1ters throughout the region by high capacity transit and promoting a multi-modal transportation system. wastewater: The spent or used water of a community or industry that contains dissolved and suspended contaminants that cannot be discharged directly to a lake, stream, or river. wetlaDds: areas characterized by the presence of surface or groWldwater at a frequency or duration to support vegetation 8(lapted for life in saturated soil conditions. For the purposes of inventory, incentives, and non-regulatory programs, those lands transitional between terrestria1 and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes of regulation, wetlands are defined by the Federal Manual for the Regulation and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands pursuant to this Chapter, Section 4-32-3.C. Wetlands created or restored as part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Wetlands intentionally created for pwposes other than wetland mitigation, including but not limited to, stormwater management, wastewater treatment Or landscape amenities, drainage ditches are not considered regulated wetlands. wildlife habitat: an area characterized by wildlife that forage, nest, spawn, or migrate through, in search· / offood and shelter. ) yard waste (Solid Waste Utility): Includes leaves, grass, prunings and clippings of woody as well as fleshy plants. Materials larger than two inches (2") in diameter and four feet (4') in length shall not be considered yard waste. Page)2ofl2 \ j