No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 12/03/2007 ytl AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING December 3, 2007 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Fire Department response times 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. 2008 City of Renton Budget b. New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation- 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition for 374 acres located in the vicinity of Maple Valley Hwy. c. Full temporary closure of Duvall Ave. NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE, from NE Sunset Blvd. to SE 95th Way, for a 13-month period from February 2008 to February 2009 5. APPEAL: Committee of the Whole report re: Grant Ave. Townhomes Site Plan Appeals INABILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE TESTIMONY ON APPEALS DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING State law requires that the City establish a process to handle appeals from application of environmental and developmental rules and regulations. The Renton City Council,feeling it was best for the elected representatives to handle the appeals rather than require citizens to go to court,has retained appellate 14000,jurisdiction to itself. The courts have held that the City Council,while sitting as an appellate body, is acting as a quasi-judicial body and must obey rules of procedure of a court more than that of a political body. By City Code, and by State law,the City Council may not consider new evidence in this appeal. The parties to the appeal have had an opportunity to address their arguments to the Committee of the Whole of the City Council at a meeting previously held. Because of the court requirements prohibiting the City Council from considering new evidence, and because all parties have had an opportunity to address their concerns to the Committee of the Whole,the City Council may not consider oral or written testimony at the City Council meeting. The Council understands that this is frustrating to citizens and is outside the normal process of open discourse provided to citizenry during the audience comment portion of the City Council meeting. However,this burden of not allowing the Council to be addressed concerning pending appeals is outweighed by the quick,easy,inexpensive and local appeal process provided by the Renton City Council. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 7. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. NOTICE to all participants: pursuant to State law, RCW 42.17.130, campaigning for any ballot measure or candidate from the lectern during any portion of the council meeting, and particularly, during the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 8. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/26/2007. Council concur. b. Mayor Keolker reappoints the following individuals to the Advisory Commission on Diversity: Sandel DeMastus, for a term expiring 12/31/2008; Raymond Lam, for a term expiring 12/31/2009; and Charles Thomas, for a term expiring 12/31/2009. Council concur. c. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends approval of the 2008 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions, which serve as guidance for staff for the State legislative session. Refer to Committee of the Whole. d. Fire Department requests authorization to change its name to Fire and Emergency Services Department,to change the department administrator's title to Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, and to establish and define the four sections of the department's organizational structure. Council concur. (See 10.a. for ordinance.) e. Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommends reclassification of positions, effective January 2008, in the Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services; Finance and Information Services; Human Resources and Risk Management; Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning; Community Services; Planning/Building/Public Works; Fire; and Police Departments. Refer to Finance Committee. f. Police Department recommends approval of a contract with Occupational Health Services (Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County)in the amount of$186,958 for health services for Renton jail inmates for 2008. Council concur. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk(*)may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Committee on Committees: 2008 Council Committee Assignments b. Committee of the Whole: 2008 Budget*; Benson Hill Communities Annexation* c. Community Services Committee: Neighborhood Grant Awards; City Code Revisions Regarding Municipal Arts Commission*; Municipal Arts Commission Appointments (Kyes & Lund) d. Finance Committee: Vouchers e. Planning&Development Committee: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments*; Highlands Study Area Zoning Designation Correction* 10. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution: Temporary total closure of Duvall Ave. NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE (see 4.c.) Ordinances for first reading: a. Fire Department name and responsibility changes (see 8.d.) b. Municipal Arts Commission revisions (see 9.c.) c. 2008 annual City of Renton Budget (see 9.b.) d. System Development Charges (Council approved via Committee of the Whole report on 9/24/2007) e. Approving the Benson Hill Communities Annexation(see 9.b.) f. Correcting zoning designation of certain properties in Highlands Study Area(see 9.e.) g. 2007 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan(see 9.e.) h. Amending parking regulations in CN zone (see 9.e.) i. Amending NE 4th, Puget,Rainier, and Sunset business districts (see 9.e.) j. Allowing Residential Manufactured Home zone to implement RLD land use designation(see 9.e.) k. Rainier Ave. properties rezone from R-10 to CA(see 9.e.) 1. Virtu property south of Sunset Blvd. rezone from RM-F to R-10 (see 9.e.) m. QIP property south of Sunset Blvd. rezone from IH to R-10 (see 9.e.) n. Park Ave.N. properties rezone from R-10 to CN (see 9.e.) (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) s r Ordinance for second and final reading: 2007 year-end budget amendments (1st reading 11/26/2007) 11. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded kiiie information.) 12. AUDIENCE COMMENT 13. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Chambers 5 p.m. Grant Ave. Townhomes Site Plan Appeals Council Conference Room Approximately 6 p.m. Emerging Issues (Regional Issues) Council Chambers Approximately 6:30 p.m. 2008 Budget Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES.&THURS.AT 11 AM&9 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9 AM&7 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1 PM&9 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 3, 2007 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TONI NELSON, Council President; RANDY CORMAN; DON PERSSON; COUNCILMEMBERS MARCIE PALMER; TERRI BRIERE; DENIS LAW. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER DAN CLAWSON. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative ATTENDANCE Officer; ZANETTA FONTES,Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; PETER HAHN, Deputy Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator-Transportation; BOB HANSON, Transportation Design Supervisor; MICHAEL BAILEY, Finance and Information Services Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; CHIEF I. DAVID DANIELS and DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT VAN HORNE, Fire Department; COMMANDER CHARLES MARSALISI, Police Department. SPECIAL Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Zimmerman reported on the PRESENTATIONS City's response to flooding issues as a result of heavy rainfall, which began on Added December 2 and measures approximately 5.6 inches. He reviewed the areas Public Works: Flood Response affected by the flooding and the resultant road closures, noting that flooding Update problems are not anticipated along the Cedar or Green rivers. Mr. Zimmerman further reported that power was restored to the 950 customers who experienced a power outage in the Renton vicinity, and that the water main break at 39th St. and Oakesdale Ave. SW was repaired. Pointing out that the Governor of Washington has declared a state of emergency, Mayor Keolker stated that a resolution has been added to the Council meeting agenda regarding declaration of a local emergency, which positions Renton to receive reimbursement funding from the federal government. (See page 423 for resolution.) Added Fire Chief Daniels announced that in response to the heavy rains, the Fire: Emergency Operations Emergency Operations Center was activated at 10:30 today, and he described Center Activation, Fire at how the Fire Department prepared for and responded to incidents. Chief Rainier Ave McDonalds Daniels reported that a three-alarm fire occurred at the McDonald's located at Rainier Ave. N. and N. Airport Way. Noting that no one was injured, he indicated that the fire investigation will begin tomorrow morning. Fire: Emergency Response Fire Chief Daniels stated that a recently adopted State law requires the Fire Times Department to include service delivery objectives in written policies; annually evaluate level of service, deployment delivery, and response time objectives; and provide a written annual report that includes steps to comply with standards. He explained that response measures are defined as turnout time: time beginning when units receive notification of the emergency to the beginning point of response time; and as response time: time beginning when units are in route to the emergency and ending when units arrive on scene. • December 3, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 414 In 2006, Chief Daniels reported that the Fire Department's average turnout time was within two minutes and sixteen seconds, ninety percent of the time; and the average response time was within six minutes and forty-five seconds, ninety percent of the time. He reviewed the arrival times of emergency vehicles to various types of incidents. Concluding, Chief Daniels detailed the plan of action that will be undertaken to meet the State requirements, and noted that the department currently has the best average response time in South King County. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Budget: 2008 Annual City of accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing Renton to consider the City of Renton 2008 Budget. Finance and Information Services Administrator Bailey reported that the budget necessary on an ongoing basis for the Benson Hill Communities Annexation, which is just under$9 million and adds 90 employees to the City, was blended into the proposed 2008 Budget. Public comment was invited. Terry Persson (Renton)provided and reviewed an analysis of the percentage increases in property taxes levied by the City of Renton since 2002, noting a purported 9.5 percent projected increase for 2008. Pointing out that the rate of • total spending increase from 2001 and 2006 totals 29 percent, indicating an inflation factor of 14 percent, he stated that the City is currently spending at double the rate of inflation. Mr. Persson expressed concern that double-digit inflation may be a consistent pattern, saying that money from new construction should be added to the pool to lower property taxes. Mr. Bailey explained that the City does not yet have new construction or annexation figures from King County for 2008. In order for the City to realize all the value of additions to the tax base as a result of development and new construction, the figures are overestimated knowing that the King County assessor will plug the correct number in as long as it is lower than what was estimated. In regard to the rates of increase, Mr. Bailey noted that the development that has driven the property tax increases above the one percent increase on existing tax base that Council has held itself to over the years, also translates into additional costs. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. (See page 419 for Committee of the Whole report.) Annexation: New Life -Aqua This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Barn,Maple Valley Hwy accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing to consider the 60% Direct Petition to annex for the proposed New Life- Aqua Barn Annexation; approximately 374 acres, including the SR-169 right-of-way, located south of the Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park along the south side of Renton-Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169). Senior Planner Erickson reviewed the annexation background, pointing out that Council expanded the boundary to include Maple Ridge Estates and View Point at Maple Ridge Estates on 6/11/2007, and that the 60% Direct Petition was certified by King County on 11/9/2007. Mr. Erickson further reviewed the environmental constraints of the area, which include the existence of one of the City's sole source aquifers. He stated that public services are provided by Fire Districts#25 and#40, Cedar River Water and Sewer District, and the Renton School District. December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 415 Continuing, Mr. Erickson relayed that the City's proposed 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendments include land use map designation changes for this area. He pointed out that the Fairwood Incorporation petition does overlap this proposed annexation on a portion of the Maple Ridge Estates and View Point areas. Mr. Erickson said the fiscal impact analysis indicates a deficit of$38,502 at current development and a deficit of$15,755 at full development, assuming the building of a 45-unit condominium development and retention of all existing development. The estimated one-time parks development cost is $498,712. Mr. Erickson reported that the proposed annexation is generally consistent with relevant Boundary Review Board criteria and City policies for annexation. He noted that the Utility Division suggests using King County's 2002 Surface Water Design Manual,Level 2, for future development. Public comment was invited. Loran Lichty (King County; annexation proponent), Bill Hulten (King County; Maple Ridge Estates Homeowners Association Vice President), and Ross Osborne (King County) spoke in favor of the annexation. Mr. Lichty expressed concern about the property overlap with the Fairwood Incorporation petition. Jean Bean (King County), Molasses Creek Association President, pointed out that some residents of the Molasses Creek community are against annexation. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE CERTIFIED 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX FOR THE EXPANDED NEW LIFE - AQUA BARN ANNEXATION AREA, AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD, AND SUPPORT FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH CURRENTLY PROPOSED 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THIS AREA. CARRIED. Correspondence was entered into the record from David L. Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, P.S. (Fircrest), who represents Aqua Barn Ranch, Inc., expressing support for the annexation. Streets: Duvall Ave NE This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Closure, Road Improvements accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing Project to consider the temporary closure of Duvall Ave. NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE, from NE Sunset Blvd. (SR-900) to SE 95th Way, for a 13-month period from February 2008 through February 2009, for the purpose of roadway and utility improvements. Deputy Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator- Transportation Hahn stated that this project involves the widening of the roadway from two to four lanes and relates to the project in the City of Newcastle that involves the improvement to May Creek Bridge, as well as the widening of the Coal Creek Parkway segment in Newcastle. He gave an overview of the upcoming staff presentation, noting the large amount of concern that exists in the community regarding this project. Transportation Design Supervisor Hanson described the proposed detour routes, and the school bus and local access routes. He stated that the project entails the following: roadway widening from two to four lanes; undergrounding of all December 3, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 416 utilities; sidewalks; water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage improvements; landscaping; street lighting; irrigation; and signal installation at NE 21st St. Mr. Hanson reviewed staff considerations concerning the timing of the various phases of construction, including coordination with the utility companies, and school children access to buses. He indicated that if the roadway is closed to through traffic,the estimated time of construction is one year. If through traffic is maintained on the roadway, the estimated time of construction is two years. Mr. Hanson pointed out that during certain parts of the construction project the roadway must be closed; and if through traffic is maintained during the project, flaggers would constantly be stopping traffic. Tom Noguchi, with Mirai Associates, Inc., presented a traffic analysis of the existing traffic conditions and volumes in the area, and a summary of traffic conditions for each construction management option. Using a simulation model, he displayed the traffic conditions that would occur if Duvall Ave. NE were to be closed during construction, and if Duvall Ave. NE were to remain open during construction. Mr. Noguchi concluded the following: closure of Duvall Ave. NE would significantly increase traffic on Union Ave. NE; both closure and open options would not significantly increase travel time for neighborhood residents; and traffic on neighborhood streets would increase under the open option. Continuing, Mr. Hahn noted that affected residents will have east/west access to Union Ave. NE and Field Ave. NE, and that the businesses in the vicinity of Duvall Ave. NE and NE Sunset Blvd. will be accessible the entire time. Mr. Hanson reviewed the traffic and safety measures to be undertaken, including: minimization measures on Union Ave. NE,particularly in the area of Sierra Heights Elementary School; stop sign installation at SE May Valley Rd./148th Ave. SE; traffic signal modification at 148th Ave. SE/SR-900; refuge lane at Field Ave. NE/SR-900; signage; truck traffic limitations on Union Ave. NE; police presence at Union Ave. NE and NE 24th St.; speed tables on NE 24th St.; and timing signal adjustments. Mr. Hahn reviewed the public outreach that will be conducted during the project, including a web page (www.duvall.rentonwa.gov), traffic signage, telephone hotline, early proactive information, and media. In conclusion, he reviewed a brief comparison of the "open" and "closed to through traffic" options for the construction project. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:43 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:51 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Clawson previously excused. Stating that the Transportation (Aviation) Committee discussed this matter last week, Councilmember Corman noted that many of the items on the mitigation plan, such as police presence at the school, were added since the committee meeting was held. Correspondence was read from the following individuals: Reshma Shah (Renton), Brad Zylstra(Renton), Eugene Chow(Renton), Maxine Leese (city of residence unknown), Michael F. Donnelly and Claudia R. Donnelly (King County), Glenn Gesell (Renton), and Rebecca Gallagher(Renton). Comments and concerns included: increased traffic through Summerwind and Sierra Heights neighborhoods; increased traffic impacts on Sierra Heights Elementary School students; length of time of the full closure; safety of children; affected December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 417 businesses negatively impacted; lack of notice regarding project; lack of traffic mitigation measures; proposal to put four-way stop at SE May Valley Rd./148th Ave. SE will create a larger traffic backup; suggestion to keep roadway open and concentrate construction on one direction at a time; increased litigation risk; and disruptions and delays to school children busing. Public comment was invited. The following speakers commented on the proposed closure: Eric Walrod (Renton), Clement Novinski (King County), Mike Jacklin (Renton), Jennifer Young(Renton), Jill Gifford (Renton), Bob Blayden (Renton), Sally van Boheemen (Renton), Rich Crispo(Newcastle), Rob Nichols (Renton), Don Joss (Kent), Debra Rogers (Renton), Hylan Slobodkin (Renton), Anita Cheung (Renton), Yolanda Chow (King County), Lusine Gharibyan (Renton), and Stan Kawamoto (Renton). Concerns expressed regarded the project timeline, as the NE Sunset Blvd./Duvall Ave. NE intersection project took longer than projected; speeding traffic on Union Ave. NE; closure of the May Creek Bridge by the City of Newcastle during its construction project; increased traffic on SE May Valley Rd. causing safety problems;backups on SR-900 when traveling from Field Ave. NE to SR-900; increased visibility of the elementary school due to closure detour route; decreased attendance at elementary school activities; timeliness of bussing school children; children's safety; and lack of notice about closure. Other concerns expressed included the expected increase in traffic in the already congested school zone on Union Ave. NE; impact on affected area residents; lack of citizen input; lack of notification to affected businesses; increased traffic on SE 95th Way that backs up on Union Ave. NE; underestimated effect of closure on the elementary school; inconsistent results from the traffic analysis; and flawed traffic analysis. Suggestions made included opening up the emergency access road that connects the Stonegate and Summerwind neighborhoods; opening the roadway on weekends; flexibility during construction to take into account the changing traffic patterns and to make necessary adjustments; conducting some construction at night; having one-way traffic southbound on Union Ave. NE and one-way traffic northbound on 148th Ave. SE; closing the roadway in the summer due to less traffic at that time and to allow for completion of the preliminary construction work; and installing speed deterrents on Union Ave. NE. Requests voiced were for driveways to remain open at the mall located at Duvall Ave. NE/SR-900 and that good access be maintained to the driveways; for a left-turn lane on southbound 148th Ave. SE to SR-900; for a temporary signal light at Coal Creek Parkway SE/SE 95th Way; and for project completion in a timely manner. Comments expressed indicated that progress needs to continue; better roads are needed; traffic congestion is already problematic; businesses located on Duvall Ave. NE will be negatively affected; and more study and discussion is needed. Other opinions were that the amount of traffic that accesses and leaves the Summerwind neighborhood has been underestimated, particularly left-hand turns onto eastbound SR-900, and that the lack of parking on Union Ave. NE negatively coincides with the elementary school's small parking lot. Councilmembers and City staff made the following comments during the audience comment portion of the meeting: police will be present at Sierra December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 418 Heights Elementary School during peak times in the morning and afternoon; the City of Newcastle will not close the May Creek Bridge during its construction project; traffic modeling showed that if Duvall Ave.NE was closed, the Summerwind neighborhood would be less affected by pass-through traffic; and assurance that communication and access will be maintained to those who front Duvall Ave.NE so that individual needs are met when work is conducted on the driveways. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. (See page 422 for further discussion.) APPEAL Council President Nelson announced that the Committee of the Whole report Committee of the Whole regarding the Grant Ave. Townhomes Site Plan appeals will be presented at the Appeal: Grant Ave next Council meeting. Townhomes Site Plan,Jones & Kovach Architects, SA-07-018 AUDIENCE COMMENT Howard McOmber(Renton) stated that a Highlands neighborhood caroling Citizen Comment: McOmber- party will be held at the Highlands Neighborhood Center. He indicated that Highlands Neighborhood there is no City involvement and that everyone is welcome. Caroling Party CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/26/2007. Council concur. 11/26/2007 Appointment: Advisory Mayor Keolker reappointed the following individuals to the Advisory Commission on Diversity Commission on Diversity: Sandel DeMastus, for a term expiring 12/31/2008; Raymond Lam, for a term expiring 12/31/2009; and Charles Thomas, for a term expiring 12/31/2009. Council concur. Legislature: 2008 Council Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Agenda& Statement of Policy recommended approval of the 2008 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Positions Policy Positions, which serve as guidance for staff for the State legislative session. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Fire: Department Name and Fire Department requested authorization to change its name to Fire and Responsibility Changes Emergency Services Department, to change the administrator's title to Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, and to establish and define the four sections of the department's organizational structure. Council concur. (See page 423 for ordinance.) Human Resources: Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended Reclassification of Positions reclassification of positions, effective January 2008, in the Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services; Finance and Information Services; Human Resources and Risk Management;Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning; Community Services; Planning/Building/Public Works; Fire; and Police Departments. Refer to Finance Committee. Police: Jail Inmate Health Police Department recommended approval of a contract with Occupational Services, Occupational Health Health Services(Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County) in the amount Services of$186,958 for health services for Renton jail inmates for 2008. Council concur. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 419 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Nelson presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding Committee of the Whole the proposed Benson Hill Communities Annexation. The Committee Annexation: Benson Hill recommended that the City annex certain territory, effective 3/1/2008, Communities, S 200th St& comprising of approximately 2,406 acres generally bounded by the City of 128th Ave SE Renton corporate boundary on the west and north, SE 192nd St. and S. 200th St. on the south, and on the east generally along 128th Ave. SE. The Committee found that all requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by election method have been met. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance annexing the Benson Hill Communities area be presented for first reading. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 423 for ordinance.) Budget: 2008 Annual City of Council President Nelson presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding Renton adoption of the 2008 Budget ordinance. The Committee recommended adoption of the 2008 Budget as proposed in the Mayor's preliminary budget with the following changes: • Remove the following from recommended appropriations and place as reserves of fund balance for further review by the Council: 1) $50,000 for the IKEA Performing Arts Center; 2) $200,000 for floating dock removal; 3) $200,000 for the Low Income Housing Initiative; 4) $10,000 for neighborhood barbecue. • Add the following items to the 2008 Budget appropriation: 1) $10,000 for neighborhood barbecue; 2) 1) $12,000 for banners in the downtown; 3-) 2) $14,000 for interpreter services in the Human Services programs. • Reduce intermittent salaries in Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department by $14,000. • Make the following adjustment in estimates: 1) increase solid waste fund revenues by $462,000; 2) reduce the Equipment Rental capital expenditures by $692,000; 3) increase the estimate of proceeds from the bond sale in the Utility Funds by $11,819,435 and authorize the replacement of the bond debt service reserve with a surety purchased during the bond sale transaction. • Move the following capital projects into the 2008 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan): 1) Houser Way improvements for$350,000; 2) demolition of the 820 Building at the airport for$290,000. The Committee recommended appropriations related to serving the Benson Hill Communities Annexation area as follows: • On-going budget appropriations of$8,968,034, including the addition of 90.6 FTEs (full time employees), and $2,738,670 one-time costs. Note: additional recommendations on one-time costs and capital improvements may be made by staff during the year. The Committee recommended a total, balanced 2008 Budget of$234,638,924. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding these matters be presented for first reading.* At the request of Mayor Keolker,her memo to the Council concerning the Neighborhood Program barbecues was read into the record. The memorandum indicated that while support for the Neighborhood Program is appreciated, the inclusion of$10,000 in the budget proposal to purchase a new barbecue for the program is not necessary. The memo detailed the reasons why the barbecue December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 420 should not be purchased, including: the City's current ownership of two propane-fueled and one pellet-fired barbecues; the efforts of staff to consolidate the neighborhood picnics; the additional picnics expected with the annexation of the Benson Hill Communities area can be accommodated without double- booking; the lack of staff to host multiple picnics on one night; and the current lack of storage space for City equipment. The Mayor's memo concluded that the expenditure is not justified due to so many pressing unmet needs, and urged that Council reconsider this proposal. Moved by Nelson, seconded by Briere, Council amend the Committee report and remove the$10,000 for the barbecue** Councilmember Persson explained that when the newest barbecue was purchased, the oldest one should have been surplused. He opined that both propane-fueled barbecues should be surplused, as the pellet-fueled barbecues are safer and are preferred by the users. Councilmember Corman supported Mr. Persson's volunteer efforts with the barbecues, noting that with the annexation the timing is appropriate for the purchase. Council President Nelson commented on the potential danger of operating the propane-fueled barbecues. Councilmember Law suggested placing the item into reserves of fund balance for further review by Council. **Motion failed. *MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL AMEND THE COMMITTEE REPORT BY MOVING THE $10,000 FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BARBECUE INTO RESERVES. CARRIED. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT AS AMENDED. CARRIED. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Corman presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in Mayor Keolker's appointments to the Municipal Appointment: Municipal Arts Arts Commission as follows: Doug Kyes, for an unexpired term expiring Commission 12/31/2008 (position previously held by Roosevelt Lewis), and Frederick Lund, for a term expiring 12/31/2010 (position previously held by Patricia Riggs). MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. EDNSP: 2007 Neighborhood Community Services Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the Program Grants 2007 neighborhood grant projects (second round). The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following grant awards: 1. Clover Creek Homeowners Association- Restoration of open space located at the northwest end of the bridge on N. 27th Pl. ($3,377). 2. Honey Creek Homeowners Association - Restore traffic circles to original design by adding new plants and conditioning the soil ($1,002). The Committee also recommended approval of funding for the following administrative newsletter applications: 1. Kennydale Neighborhood Association: Annual printing for a newsletter printed quarterly and mailed($1,890). 2. Summerwind Homeowners Association - Annual printing for a newsletter printed quarterly and mailed($279). 3. Tiffany Park Neighborhood Association - Annual printing for a newsletter printed quarterly and distributed door-to-door($769). December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 421 The second round of applications totaled$7,317, with the remaining balance of $452. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 266537 - 266884 and one wire transfer totaling $159,489.82; and approval of zero Payroll Vouchers, zero wire transfers, and zero direct deposits totaling$382.29. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL AMEND THE COMMITTEE REPORT TO TAKE OUT THE $382.29. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE AMENDED FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Committee on Committees Council President-Elect Palmer presented a Committee on Committees report Council: 2008 Committee recommending the following Council committee chairmanships and committee Assignments assignments for 2008: Community Services Committee: Terri Briere, Chair; King Parker, Vice Chair; Randy Corman,Member. Finance Committee: Don Persson, Chair; Terri Briere, Vice Chair; King Parker, Member. Planning and Development Committee: King Parker, Chair; Dan Clawson, Vice Chair; Greg Taylor, Member. Public Safety Committee: Greg Taylor, Chair; Randy Corman, Vice Chair; Don Persson, Member. Transportation (Aviation) Committee: Randy Corman, Chair; Don Persson, Vice Chair; Dan Clawson, Member. Utilities Committee: Dan Clawson, Chair; Greg Taylor, Vice Chair; Terri Briere, Member. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR 1N THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Committee regarding the Highlands Study Area rezone correction. The Committee Planning: Highlands Study recommended that Council adopt the rezoning of the parcels located between Area Zoning Correction, Olympia Ave. NE and Monroe Ave. NE, south of NE 12th St. in the Highlands Monroe Ave NE area, to Residential Multi-Family zoning in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations of the Highlands Task Force on zoning. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 423 for ordinance.) Comprehensive Plan: 2007 Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Amendments recommending concurrence in the staff and Planning Commission recommendation to approve the 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendments and concurrent rezones as shown on the matrix entitled "2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments," summarized as follows: • 2007-M-01 —Alan Kunovsky applicant; Map amendment to change Residential Medium Density with R-10 zoning to Commercial December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 422 Neighborhood (CN) with CN zoning, and change zoning text amendments related to parking. • 2007-M-02—O'Farrell Properties, LLC & City of Renton applicants; Map amendment to change Residential Medium Density with R-10 zoning to Commercial Corridor with Commercial Arterial zoning, and change zoning text amendments related to business districts. • 2007-M-03 —City of Renton applicant;Map amendments and concurrent prezoning related to New Life-Aqua Barn Annexation site. • 2007-M-04—Robert Cave&John Cowan applicants; withdrawn. • 2007-M-05—David Halinen applicant;Map amendment to change Employment Area- Industrial with Heavy Industrial zoning to Residential Medium Density with R-10 zoning. • 2007-M-06—City of Renton applicant; Map amendments and concurrent prezoning related to Benson Hill Communities Annexation site. • 2007-M-07—City of Renton applicant; denied. • 2007-T-01 —City of Renton applicant; Text amendment to update Capital Facilities and Transportation elements to reflect housekeeping changes. • 2007-T-05 —City of Renton applicant; Text amendment,updating the Land Use Element, to the Residential Low Density land use designation to allow Residential Manufactured Home as an implementing zone. The Committee recommended that the ordinance for all Comprehensive Plan amendments and all concurrent City Code Title IV text amendments be presented for first reading. The Committee further recommended that the ordinances for concurrent rezones of property included in Applications 2007-M-01, Park Ave.; 2007-M-02, Rainier Ave.; and 2007-M-05, QIP and Virtu properties; be presented for first reading. The ordinances for concurrent rezones of property included in Application 2007-M-06, Benson Hill Communities, that was annexed into Renton as part of the Hudson Annexation will be presented for adoption in January 2008. The ordinances for concurrent prezones of property included in the portion of Application 2007-M-06, Benson Hill Communities,that will be annexed into Renton as part of the Benson Hill Communities Annexation will be presented for adoption prior to the effective date of annexation, 3/1/2008. The ordinances for concurrent prezones of property included in Application 2007-M-03, Maple Valley Hwy. Corridor, will be presented for adoption prior to the effective date of the New Life- Aqua Barn Annexation, estimated as 4/1/2008. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See pages 423 and 424 for ordinances.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Streets: Duvall Ave NE A resolution was read authorizing the temporary total closure of Duvall Ave. Closure,Road Improvements NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE, from NE Sunset Blvd.to SE 95th Way.* Project Councilmember Persson recommended holding the resolution for one week due to the concerns raised during the public hearing, such as parking at Sierra Heights Elementary School, signal light timing at NE Sunset Blvd./Duvall Ave. December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 423 NE, police presence on Union Ave. NE, and four-way stop at NE 24th St./Union Ave.NE. *MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL HOLD THE RESOLUTION UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.* Council discussion ensued regarding the additional review by staff of concerns and ideas, and it was agreed that the matter would be discussed at the Transportation (Aviation) Committee on December 5. *MOTION CARRIED. Added A resolution was read declaring a local emergency, as conditions of peril to the Resolution#3921 safety of persons and property have arisen within the City caused by a storm Public Safety: Declaration of with heavy rains. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL Local Emergency ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 12/10/2007 for second and final reading: Fire: Department Name and An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5, Fire Department, of Title III Responsibility Changes (Departments) of City Code by changing the duties of the Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator and to change the responsibilities of the various department divisions. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Budget: 2008 Annual City of An ordinance was read adopting the annual budget for the year 2008 in the total Renton amount of$234,638,924. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Utility: System Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, Charges of Title IV(Development Regulations) of City Code to allow for adjustments to System Development Charges. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Annexation: Benson Hill An ordinance was read annexing approximately 2,406 acres of property Communities, S 200th St & generally bounded by the City of Renton corporate boundary on the west and 128th Ave SE north, SE 192nd St. and S. 200th St. on the south and on the east, 108th Ave. SE, the eastern edge of Boulevard Lane Park, the western edge of Boulevard Lane Division No. 2, and 128th Ave. SE, if extended, but including Renton Park and Charles Lindberg High School; Benson Hill Communities Annexation. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Planning: Highlands Study An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties Area Zoning Correction, within the Highlands Study Area from R-10 (Residential - ten dwelling units per Monroe Ave NE acre)to RM-F (Residential Multi-Family)zoning; LUA-06-128; CPA 2006-M- 06. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Comprehensive Plan: 2007 An ordinance was read adopting the 2007 amendments to the City's 2004 Amendments Comprehensive Plan, maps and data in conjunction therewith. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 424 Comprehensive Plan: 2007 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Amendments, CN Zone Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the Parking Regulations regulations regarding the location of required parking in the Commercial Neighborhood zone. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Comprehensive Plan: 2007 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts-Uses and Amendments,Business Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the Districts Regulations regulations regarding the Rainier Business District Overlay and the decision criteria for stand alone residential in the NE 4th, Sunset, and Puget business districts. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Comprehensive Plan: 2007 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Amendments, Allowing RMH Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by allowing to Implement RLD Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) zoning to implement the Residential Low Density (RLD) land use designation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Rezone: Rainier Ave An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Rainier Ave. Properties, R-10 to CA, CPA properties from R-10 (Residential - ten dwelling units per acre) to CA (Commercial Arterial) zoning; LUA-06-161; CPA 2007-M-02. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Rezone: Virtu Property South An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Virtu property of Sunset Blvd, RM-F to R-10, south of Sunset Blvd. from RMF (Residential Multi-Family)to R-10 CPA (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-06-167; CPA 2007-M- 05. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Rezone: QIP Property South of An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the QIP property Sunset Blvd, IH to R-10, CPA south of Sunset Blvd. from IH (Heavy Industrial) to R-10 (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-06-167; CPA 2007-M-05. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. Rezone: Park Ave N An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Park Ave. N. Properties, R-10 to CN, CPA properties from R-10 (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood)zoning; LUA-06-160; CPA 2007-M-01. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/10/2007. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5323 An ordinance was read providing for the 2007 year-end budget amendments in Budget: 2007 Year-End the total amount of$4,141,991. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY Amendments LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. December 3,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 425 NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER Finance: Gambling Tax GAMBLING TAX REVENUES TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. Revenues CARRIED. Council: Meeting Cancellation MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CANCEL (12/17/2007) THE 12/17/2007 COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mary Urback(Puyallup), representing O'Farrell Properties (2007 Citizen Comment: Urback - Comprehensive Plan amendment; Rainier properties), expressed her pleasure 2007 Comprehensive Plan regarding working with staff on the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Amendments She commended staff for educating both the applicant and the public on the amendment process,noting that community involvement is encouraged. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 10:34 p.m. )8671,X44 tdal.67') Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann December 3, 2007 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 3, 2007 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 12/10 Emerging Issues in Economic (Nelson) 5:30 p.m. Development and Transportation *Council Conference Room* Approximately Legislative Priorities 6:30 p.m. *Council Chambers* COMMUNITY SERVICES (Corman) FINANCE MON., 12/10 Reclassification of Positions (Persson) 4:30 p.m. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 12/06 CANCELLED (Briere) PUBLIC SAFETY MON., 12/10 CANCELLED (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) WED., 12/05 Basketball Hoops on Public Right-of- (Palmer) 4 p.m. Way; Local & Regional Transportation Issues Update; Duvall Ave. N. Temporary Closure UTILITIES THURS., 12/06 CANCELLED (Clawson) NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. / fdii 5/216e1LP/OtNIAja.20t, CITY OF RENTON / L/V Ld o.7 Situation Report SITUATION REPORT # 2 E-MAIL: Phone: Fax: ECC@CI.RENTON.WA.US 425.430.7111 425.430.7085 ACTIVATION LEVEL: I 1 MISSION NO. 07-3894 PERSON REPORTING: Date: 12/03/2007 Time: 1500 ADMIN/FINANCE: SMITH 1. General SituatioN: (overview) Strong low-pressure front is passing through the region causing wind and heavy rains. Rain is expected to sharply taper off by 1600. The front and any associated winds should be past by 1700 hrs. Local conditions hampered by downed trees, power lines, localized flooding, and power outages. ECC activated level 1. A 3-alarm commercial fire at the McDonalds located at Airport Way & Rainier Ave. is taxing Fire Dept. resources. 2. Casualty Status: TOTALS EMPLOYEES CIVILIANS INJURIES 0 0 MISSING 0 0 FATALITIES 0 0 comments: 3. Evacuations/shelters: a. areas evacuated : NONE b. shelters established: NONE 4. Property: TYPE #DESTROYED #DAMAGED COMMENTS Pvt. Homes 0 2 Flooded basements Multi-family 0 0 Businesses 0 0 Multiple flooded business parking lots. Schools 0 0 Senior Housing 0 0 5. ESSENTIAL SERVICES Category Normal Reduced Non-Functional Unk not- Capacity reported Transportation Streets & Roads X Rail Service X Bus Service X 1 of 4 CITY OF RENTON Situation Report Comments: Lake Wa. Blvd. Closed. Cedar River Trail closed due to flooding. Renton airport is up and running without power. It will close @ dusk. Ripley Ln. closed. Signal light at Shattuck Ave. & Airport Way is out Communications Telephone/Fax X Radio System 800 MHz-VHF X TV, Cable X Internet, LAN, WAN X Comments: Water/Sewer Drinking Water X Sewer X Storm Water X Dams, Levees, River X Comments: 12-inch water main break at 39th& Oaksdale. Crews attempting to maintain pressure downtown &the valley. Restoration to normal is expected imminently Public Wks receiving numerous calls of local flooding. Sewage pump station at Renton Airport was on generator power, but is now restored to normal operation. Power Electric Utilities X Natural Gas X Fuel X Pipeline X Comments: Puget Sound Energy(PSE)has reported that currently there are approximately 950 customers without power in the Renton area. A circuit off of PSE's Paccar substation (which is located on N. 8th Street)has experienced an outage. Servicemen have been dispatched and are tentatively scheduled to have power restored by 4pm today(depending upon whether there is an associated underground outage). Power at Renton Airport has been restored. Service (gas)Station at Airport and Rainier does not have power Law Enforcement Police Services X Valley Response Team X Comments: High volume of emergency responses. Correctional Facilities City Jail/Courthouse X Comments: Firefighting Capabilities X Water X Haz Mat Response capabilities X Facilities/EPCRA Sites X 2 of 4 CITY OF RENTON Situation Report Comments: High volume of emergency and service calls, personnel are on specific directives regarding safety. Dive/Rescue staffing has been enhanced, able to respond immediately to calls. Fire Dept. Operations Center was briefly activated to handle excessive call volume but is now de-activated. Additional staffing levels at Fire. A3-Alarm commercial fire is taxing Fire Dept. resources. Emergency Services Valley Communications X RENTON EOC X EMS, ambulances X Comments: Financial Services Institutions X ATM's X Comments: Medical Clinics X Adult care X Public Health Svcs. X Comments: Governmental Svcs. Schools X Other: Comments: 6. OTHER COMMENTS: Sandbags are available at the City Maintenance Shops,3555 NE 2"d st.. Citizens can pick up pre-filled bags or may fill as many bags as they anticipate needing. Please call 425-430-7400 before 1630 hrs. • 7. RESOURCE NEEDS NEXT 24 HOURS: No additional resources other than continued PSE support for power restoration. 8. FUTURE OUTLOOK AND ACTIONS: Conditions continue to change due to increasing winds and intermittent rain. Assessments continue and activation status is expected to continue into early Monday evening. Cedar River expected to crest at 11 ft. around 2200 hrs. Rains predicted to return by late Tuesday. 3 of 4 From: Gregg Zimmerman To: Tami Dauenhauer Subject: Re: Admin Rpt Items Needed ASAP -THANKS! This is an adminstrative report on today's storm: '/2) Rain started on Sunday, there has been 5.6 inches Sunday and Monday. The shops rain guage shows 4.1 inches over the last 24 hours (3.9 inches in 24 hours constitutes the 100-year storm event). 1) The EOC was activate around 10:30 AM 2) Flooding problems: Lake Washington Boulevard was flooded betwwen 41st and 48th ST.next to Denny's restaurant, and the road is closed. 3) Hardie Ave. is flooded near the location of the railroad bridge, and the road closed. 4) Ripley Lane is flooded in the vicinity of the new Seahawks facility, and the road closed. Access to local vehicles has been provided along the bike/Pedestrian trail from the north. 5) The Cedar River continues to be in good shape and is not in a Stage 2 flood stage. There is also storage space available behind the masonry dam. We will continue to track this tomorrow. 6) Coal Creek Parkway in Newcastle near SE 95th experienced a landslide and Newcastle closed the road. Duvall also had a portion of one lane flooded in Renton, but the water has now subsided off the roadway. 7) SW 43rd St. between IKEA and NAPA, water across the roadway, but is passable to vehicles and the road was not closed. 8) There was water across the roadway at Lincoln and Monterray at the north end of the City. This was caused by debris clogging the storm drainage system and was fixed by the City crews. 9) The Clarion Hotel on East Valley Highway has a parking lot flooding problem on their private parking lot. 10) Two residences along S. 4th Street near Chuck's Donuts are in a low spot and have experienced flooding. 11) A small stream from an underground spring at Leisure Estates is draining into the common property line between the park and Leisure Estates. Park crews sandbagged this area and connected a flexible pipe to divert the water flow. 12) Talbot Road had water across it, but was not closed to traffic. 13) Some GOOD NEWS: Neither Renton Village, nor Monroe Ave. near McChevron, nor the SW 7th Street vicinity flooded due to surface water capital improvements that were recently completed. 14) We had a watermain break at 39th and Oakesdale in the Valley. This is near a construction project and a thrust block failed. A temporary repair is done and the customers have water now. 15) PSE reported 950 customers without power in the Renton vicinity. A circuit off of PSE's Paccar substation on N. 8th St. experienced an outage. About 4:00 PSE reported power restored to Renton customers. 16) Due to the power outage, for a time parts of the Renton Airport were without power, but the airport remained open. Several street signal were out, at Shattuck and Airport Way, RAinier and Airport Way, and others. These should be back in service now. 17) the Cedar River Trail was closed by Parks fropm Bronson Way Bridge to the Logtan Street Bridge due to flooding. 18) Kennydale Beach Park has incurred some damage from surface water runoff. 19) 3-alarm fire at McDonalds on Rainier. 20) Sandbags are available at the City Maintenance Shops. Citizens can pick up pre,filled bags and may fill as many bags as the anticipate needing, but please call 425-430-7400 first. I7WL j 77/ 4_ 7 oo jf^ >>>Tami Dauenhauer 12/03/07 2:59 PM >>> //!� �// Sorry- I forgot to send out an earlier request. At this point, I have nothing at all for the Admin Report, so your submissions will be most appreciated! Thanks. CC: David Daniels; Deborah Needham; Jay Covington . .. ' ' --- ... .-:-,1".' ' . ..-. ..,. .....- : L/‘ fc .:., ,, .......... CPI .; i-.. - .....,„7.- , '-'• ..,---t-'\ F" t L ' Ii,.........__- r.---ki., ..„.•,,t ,i'.?'' t V f,' -.'• '• ' ., • , ,-,,E .....- ' :1 ..dZ) sZ:D.----., , ' - ;•-• . .....,. ..,,, s.,, ,,•, . .. , ....., s,,%,,;.4' ,,if ''ii.' \::'':i% , ..V...%k"n,f,. .%,,. i ..11,71-2.1 :if:, , .?53 ',,,,,,,-,,...". ' 2A"40,VA,'''''''':xi, T- ''. ' ..\\'''''''';'''''''''''''''''''''''''''4...4:1'4,''.''!.•'-Vt.C.`'..4,- .'..: ' ., .,,,,,,::,-,'„.,:...:.„..:1,,A=v1kkt"'- -.-,- --.•,t,,,,.-•t- . 44.7e''''tft4;*; : ": '.::S'..1::: '''' • . „. . . • •Dan4 A ,',.. '-;-, Atli' . . , : f..(.;i4. 1/4.. ?'' . ...''. I . David . - • ChieE 3t..--,-.:,-....v..,....‘,-,,,..,..v.;\,:-,,,.:-...,, f/ ,r,„._.=. ; Fire „-t.- ,:w.,,,,, --.-:-., -.... ,;k'..'-'.:;.-.A.-.,-,:,,,-..-_,:::::,...,....:::......i...-..'" . etp.i.-:.:,,,,-.., ,,,a m b,t.,..,.. ...j,,,-,,.. Dei...%--!.,!..,--„;:'.'!'Ai'T-r- "---' - ...„,. ,... .,. House Bill 1756 , ( RCW 35A- 92 ) requires : Service delivery objectives be included in written policies Annual evaluation of level of service and deployment delivery and response time objectives Written annual report based on the annual evaluation and setting forth steps necessary to achieve compliance with standards . :1A7r'f, 'eNt C — Turnout Time - time beginning when units receive notification of the emergency to the beginning point of response time . Response Time - time beginning when units are en route to the emergency and ending when units arrive on scene . A,-, :,1,r tr. • a I *Ai 010 „.1 r A Ail* *4 s 41j- • „se . . I 7 ftg *4, toe '4 As. 00- „ Unit Unit Unit Dispatched en route to Arrives on Call to 911 Emergency Scene Turnout Time Response Time Turnout Time was within 2 minutes, 16 seconds, 90% of the time . Response Time was within 6 minutes, 45 seconds, 90% of the time . Z " .. `v„.-,4-:,-.'._,,,,,-(zik I -_,-!:., , 0, ,. . 1,,,4 4: ;�� z x 3 1 y i - � ri" �z ,, Ar.. 2 'r ' _ n. oma„� . c 9 x y p, 4 ?a ,59 -, - '-* .. --- '--::, '---- .7' `..../. - - , .. ,..../.... .... , , Arrival of the First Engine at a Fire Incident was within 5 minutes, 25 seconds, 90% of the time . Arrival of the First Alarm Assignment (3 engines , 1 ladder, 1 aid unit, 1 command unit) was within 1 S minutes, 36 seconds, 90% of the time . + ,s,' .. t "" � * ,# far • t pp, s s F« 1 r mi.tfr l p.. 1.1 ii if p ' *# I �: -. 1.\-tea Arrival of Emergency Medical Technical at an Emergency Medical Incident was within 7 minutes, 1 secondthe time . Arrival 90% of Arrival of Hazardous Materials Trained and Equipped Technicians responded espo nded to two o incidents and arrived within 21 minutes, 30 0 seconds and 27 minutes, 2 seconds .. .. .v..,,,, r---- 7"- Vi. #tA-Xt*ft :411 Zt *. S s14 Arrival of Water Rescue Trained and Equipped Technicians responded to three incidents and arrived at two of them within 12 minutes, 53 seconds and had one longer response time . '16'''''t.:iio-i IL' . 4e'74,107 .0,::71' ill:i'r''..4--4.1r.17.;'::' 1.';":::.'''''' ' ,''''' ' ,' -_ . ; ti .� 4 "r '`i i,,'# p r ! - � +/+ .- .1 ,.',T": .I.F. Ir' ' ''.t '4 _........:,...,,,,.....a.v.r. -.7-r.-... Ir4,4:,-'Ciro; ,..! ,/ ,it k.. ,, f' .-*',T.,:14E,:::::-:',...,:j;.- *Atittor'''... i.RN,14S' •N‘. loi'\411' : I!: ,-;,.r..',`:*` & -„ , :- -,...:1:'-'4„.7::-'.-.7.-.;.1.;.',,'-..- . 1111*,. ' It ,„,. ,...w. „k, , , ...• . M�11 \t i, mow-. 4 +l * -<: w *Fx ,,,,, ;, *4 9 b$ ""' + .. w` fik ',Y /IC." Vii�f� 6.u�r" x:t* _... r m �S * --.4414,,- R� .'Y [i -sly x V r-1 There is no objective method of defining " the geographic areas and circumstances in which the requirements of this standard are not being met". There is no objective method of predicting "consequences of any deficiencies and address the steps that are necessary to achieve compliance " ly is .., o.....,..., ... ,• objectively that from policy . expected Deve o lo , a City of service . level identifies the . Services ncy service . Emerge core the Fire and . itsexternal Department in , . .... . „„ . „,,er. ,.''' '•' . ' areas - .. „. .. .„.,..„ :. , .„:„.: 4,..., _ . . „ ,.... . , -.- --,4 ...- 11, . ;:: '5'''''*4.11r ooS11:;',..2.1-,. .:',,, -'t.;;.•1 . 7,7 . -t,tirfo , • I ,\ - • . . _ . Vie,.40 ' • # , i - _ .... +. .._ i . , ,,,f,A. • . . 'A:7. ''-- ' . ,. ^,,,, - •=..-... ..4:Er% .•-..- •.r''"'s'''''''r:''''''''' 'kt`Ca:•,.....: . ..,%:..'cist.'-'i.":1;,'-;"''r• r . ....- - ,- . ... (.: .. r1 .,,,I ,,,, ,,,, i r, ,,, „„.1s i.,. ,„._„. V ; -- ,,..-----1' I , i-- ! 1 ,',,,,...,.:,- ',- *:- .. -',_ ,.. ........J., \ ,- Develop 2007 Annual Report by early 2008 . Evaluate alternatives to achieving objectives by mid 2008 . Propose service delivery modifications as indicated in the 2009 budget process . . -',..,"1:*,',-. ' •:....-- *-, : - .,........... -)....... -4.- . lie. liar , ....„..._ •„.. :-'-' :m . . ar 1 i .- .„. .. ' ......, _ . „,,,.. . .. . .:..-,...iA,..,1t..= , , •,,Vil.V.,V=.:.4.el"--.,-,5‘,-- r..' * . ‘' ,- f .1.Mir 10,41. t 4 k p Thi i • Ott,' 4 , x to a 'max - ' , 11, ' ,..4? ' '''' , ,. 'l ;1 '•,..'''' 4., ''''' - ,11, ..,1,,,,,:'.-'1,-",,,,,,,..,:,,,,7,;-,,n el% . . ' s,' i ' 11 '. -.,t--. • , , , ,k ' 4 . gi ,1 wit' ' 4,1,,"..\siff/ ' . ' % ;.'" ' p— 1 tix}t 00 }11 e t 2 � h' t! . , •"�'+ ? te.n. L� 4, a'#it 1 ). ,,,.t:sc'*!:, l' ellP!' •i'.,,,°'14''.‘‘..‘ ,` : i `4.:;''''tn,l'.'"'•'' ',1 it?.. '*_ H .� ' ; a tycfi: ..0t1` "4".P,4:,....',4!60 • ` lA'' `i'(w wriii' ,i. .:''.1'4.- a^ : r 't tr H a gT` `• 4ii? rr ,a ?+a;,.v:,.;,:: $ • ir ,,*,i • .. ;,..e." ."7::•**r'''s.'*.:"I'.:-:;,.•:-1''".f;* ' 011 . ''5'A y Fw �,, < • ,' .v"'" 34 J - ` '' I cmeAtile •N-rO� NEW LIFE - AQUA BARN ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND FUTURE ZONING December 3, 2007 On October 23, 2007, the City received the 60% Direct Petition to Annex from the annexation proponents and submitted it to King County for certification. On November 11, 2007, the City received notice from the Assessor's Office that the 60%Direct Petition for the 374 acre annexation had been certified. Tonight's public hearing is to allow Council to decide whether it wishes to now accept the 60% Direct Petition to Annex, and if so, whether it wishes to authorize the Administration to forward it to Boundary Review Board for their mandatory 45-day review. Typically, Council would also be asked to consider future zoning for the subject 374-acre annexation site, but as part of this year's Comprehensive Plan Amendments the area was prezoned to reflect existing development patterns already on the ground. Therefore, unlike most annexation hearings, tonight's does not address future zoning. The annexation site abuts the existing City boundary on its west and north. It is bordered by the Cedar River on its west, and the north side of the SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway on the north. A portion of its northern and its eastern boundaries also abut the Urban Growth Boundary (see exhibit on back). The subject site is within the City's Potential Annexation Area and is primarily designated Residential Low Density(RLD) on the steeper hillsides, and Residential Medium Density and Residential Single Family along the valley floor, on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Most of the proposed annexation area was previously considered as part of the Maplewood Addition Annexation a year and a half ago,but later dropped in the fall of 2006, based upon a State Supreme Court ruling about similar annexation area expansions made by the Boundary Review Board. This site currently has King County's R-6 zoning on most of it with a small three acre portion fronting on the highway east of the new bridge zoned Neighborhood Business and four sites, three of which are manufactured home parks, zoned R-12. As part of this year's Comprehensive Plan Amendments package, the Planning Commission considered new land use designations that better reflect the current patterns of development within the area, this last summer. Residential sites that are developed with higher densities are proposed to be designated Residential Medium Density with potential R-14 prezoning, and those with manufactured housing, Residential Manufactured Homes. Existing single-family areas are proposed to be designated Residential Single Family with potential R-8 zoning. Areas with steep slopes or near floodplains would retain their current Residential Low Density land use designation and be prezoned RC, Resource Conservation. The Administration is recommending that Council accept the 60% Direct Petition and authorize it to forward the Notice of Intention package to the Boundary Review Board. Council Hear Handout 12-03-07.doc\ ik r s\__ :/-7- '''N ---- ' "7" q7' ,LI i tr----J :1') , , i .., L , mi :: ,. , , ,: 1 , 1 ,--3:----- :ii 1 i 1__,L.jc L,/,',•: ------ -_,_ , s . N‘ 1 . .. T 7/,:5, .. __Ji ._' _ __:_----7-7--- _____-_,,,I.,_____,_±) ' L . --.-. , ,( , , z . ,-L.. , jam'" ,a,y:;", W g --Th,[-___---I-7tii-------- ( -------='-'-''_i:_. :J ,11,-. ___..: ,L Q+ 11 .( �� ft �- II V'�;. '>�l' r' - >J <0(2('‘ ' I ' 41111,/ l n V O New Life Church - Aqua Barn Annexation 0 1500 3000 S, ,-,.: Exhibit #2 - Vicinity — omits a o Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning —•— Ulban Growth Boundary 8000 ro. Afex Pietsch•Administrator c E.k'eosel © Study Area 0 W 12 lune 2007 ro„ z ta U 0 O U { fk 3 ; ei 0 £ O� U1- A4 tom, . k Q h ;I" 1 , � Merritt II(Phase lI)1 J - i ( 52.7 ac, ] ``'''`' 'Aster Park 18.5 ac. ti 7 — Active �.— - -III y�- Annexations —, ,� \ Marshall 77 ac. I I t Leitch 16.2 ac. , � -1- Subject site q?„ i } , i 1_ LI 184.2 ac.r"--' 1 ir \\,,, -I � -s, New Life Church; I n>kw 11 -Aqua Barn I, 296.9*.. ---, it ccvr i ”; - ��, i ,......,W ,U Benson Hill -Communiti «es; - .ti 2437.9 ac. ' Current Annexations L., • t Background • Annexation area previously considered as part of the Maplewood Addition — Expanded Annexation • Area dropped from Maplewood Addition — Expanded Annexation in response to November 2006 State Supreme Court decision regarding BRB's authority to expand annexations without property owner input • Separate annexation submitted in April 2007 2 Former Maplewood Addition — Expanded Annexation a • JJ \; rvr • m F " Maplewood Addition Expansion Areas 0 1500 300 Option 2 PMectOn B .q.v.,,n««.n, — — tm:.e awn aeU,a.v - zw 1 18000 .ne..,..Y.nr. RU1I011&h tl DrsGM 9aw1da ].e 4 AIo46N ' Bove; Background, continued • 10% Notice of Intent Petition submitted in April 2007 • Petition certified by County Assessor's Office on April 24, 2007 • Public meeting held on June 4, 2007 and continued to June 11, 2007 • On June 11, 2007 Council expands boundary* and authorizes circulation of 60% Direct Petition • 60% Direct Petition submitted on October 23, 2007 and certified by County on November 9, 2007 ''.-ldded.tlaple Ridge Estates and View Point at Maple Ridge 3 ,, Proposed New Life — Aqua Barn Annexation )`40"4,44 ' ,WOod Golf c / '---sr__) JL� . Course '. il - ' i - ==te' r ``-=. � JA : c.'- _;' r�� 1 �ii� . ac--A__,LLJUL Li?,,_. 4---1_!.1_;„--tW&I_N.i7,-('-7:5FT87? \,)' ,----z':.-4,4 : New Life Church - Aqua Barn Annexation 0 1500 3000 Exhibit#2-Vicinity _ --- City Limb ---- .Ndsu>anoms& >'Ia. — — Urban GowthBoundary 1:18000 ..rr... p study a.. Existing Conditions • PAA — Within Renton's Potential Annexation Area • Location — south of Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park along south side of Renton — Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) ® Size — ± 374 acres, including SR 169 ROW • Uses — basically built out; potential 45-lot unit condo development • Boundaries — annexation site abuts Renton on portions of on its northern and western boundaries 4 Molasses Creek Pioneer Sub. Neiv� Life Condos Church Vallee Faire t3 Wonderland Condo (";_•(I;r Itner Apt.s � Vallee Viev\ ME-IP Lstntes Null'7. ,, �: ,, . l 11iot' ( ,ri � � F� Si C a. a e rings Apt S ti l New Life Church -Aqua Barn Annexation 0 ,$� 3000 ,1 Aerial C,,L„,,, esa. nom. - .... uro�3 a a.n 1:18000 A 9R; — sways.. V4`,174 t`,� `\\ � . �ni] l� Imo f �r7 t .7 '''- ;-,_' :-- -'-'46 t-_,--1.--T--- --4, FIP-r---.11iLl'i ,. r__, HILE SCJ, V�— 4-\'`l ) ..t.. firi, . , , L--- , pi v. '1 . ''' Tt,,,. ,-.. . , --0 - - - h, CSE_ :+ . ...., ,-_-_,,,,,--) L 1-/IL -1 I '-7 ' -' -- i//' — ,_,- -2-,L___. ,c , _, , i(,u, Lug ` {{{, ,`--),0 \J,-..---- it. elly_-n ' '1 ) _, New Life Church -Aqua Barn Annexation 0 1500 3000 Sensitive Areas —— — W"a-� cam: wm wawa Rsuy rw.sK o swaya.a 1:18000 5 F;nvironmental Constraints • Steep slopes to the south dictate where development has occurred, mostly along valley floor • Areas near Cedar River subject to potential flooding • One of City's sole source aquifers (APA #1) along SR-169 and primarily west of 140th Ave SE , , ‘\ looking southeast on SE 153' 1 Place at new Pioneer Place Subdivision 6 • r it i L „ View looking southeast across New Life Church parking lot at Valley Springs Apartments Existing Conditions - Public Services • Fire - District 25 and District 40 • Utilities - Cedar River Water& Sewer District is designated water and sewer purveyor (no change) • Schools -- Within Renton School District (no change s t 41- 7 i117 Existing County and City Comp Plan Land Use Designations King County City of Renton • Urban Res. —Med, 4- • Residential Low 12 du/ac Density • Neighborhood Bus. • Residential Single Center Family • County Owned Open • Residential Med. Space Density • Commercial Corridor Current City Comp Plan�.,�gLand Use Map Designations 4 ',� R x` �1. }. i„ "x.0 9. y5k'+yy, ,:,;;..i.04(0, ;,-1,,,,,:-: J/' ��h(0, 44 Sf, 1'lr 1J! ,,,,--.4,,.-r,V�u4, j i' .,: �4{ 4. aat -,----)G---:-----,,, `uRSA �-- \�� - � . �iL a I, .�Ir`\. ��-5% J ,' ivxr�;�1 i`-'? RLD l�_ .. �[_. —fir • V---11 �� 11 �Jr�� •.�. � ? 1 Z�II a\'\ e �: . _.! ;Cit _.I u ( � J i .,">,' ,. New Life Church -Aqua Barn Annexation 0 1500 3000 Current Comp Plan ResiOentblSingle Foray — , —— City Unita E,,,,,,,,,cOrbPOr04 NeiAMpoda A eaq?booing — — Urban Grout) w�eounaarytCRestldneLMamuOy sn tly 1 18000 CaM'r7 O 364Cy Ne to COmnwriol Corridor 8 Land Use Related Conclusions Renton's current Comp Plan Land Use Map designations for area do not adequately reflect post-1993 development along highway A portion of the annexation area, the former Aqua Barn site, was updated in 2006 6, Proposed 2007 Comp Plan Amendments include land use map designation changes for this area Proposed Revisions to Comp Plan Land Use Map 7:3:::: :,,, , R — '—� -1-ifirgrog, -___ P, �' filton nape , a � _, 441 Vale( 11 'eY gar 12'44_4,, .,., 1 - A- \ Rutk e i iii 3 3m �� R, _..(r ,.,"ii.. , .„.,.....,.,., RSF # rr q9q " y y�`^,;n s C ' S Ri RMH . rC'g 1KB by 3Sg�,�Fge —. \ + N i 9 j ..`, .+ Y 4, - Y `#Ft .+:to 'Y'.. _ _ _Fs�.. } RC , r2� 1 ,.t F � Y 1 f r� ; yy�,_ i l Maple Valley Hwy Coria• fiwnomic Darwo merit 4Pad (2007-M-03)New LU and Zonin r �.�a "'"c rhoodsand QNer.ute.pus Rem Proposed Randy Zming 9rahpicPLannmg Nw Land u» IJCRCommenyel Meda NVRmemmmv da AAMde.P"""*.* mdplea Adm Lald - QR-11 RdMw dlnddme Now..29,2007 _CCCC-Comm../Candor QR-1RedderBM ea.. =RID-Reldorfl LowDmdly QR.6Reldenlei 6dabe 0 R Feet \ - 4RMD-ReedNdil MCYua Density = BRmedmeial MAw. 1.12,000 ��// n ., IT.,RSF-RudMY SInd*Pemey Q RC ReaumCmaer,Ybn N Q RMH RaxtlmW ManuNmrM Hames I_v�o`�ins m _ __ � 9 Compliance with Relevant Boundary Review Board Objectives • Preservation of natural No change neighborhoods and communities • Use of physical boundaries Uses City and physical boundaries such as SR-169 • Creation and preservation Service area boundaries of logical service areas previously agreed to by districts • Prevention of abnormally City boundary is interim irregular boundaries pending other annexations within City's PAA Compliance with Relevant Boundary Review Board Objectives • Dissolution of inactive Not applicable. There special purpose districts are no inactive special purpose districts • Adjustment of impractical Boundaries are interim. boundaries City policy is to annex all of its PAA • Incorporation as cities or Annexation site is in towns or annexations to City's designated PAA cities or towns of and as such is urban in unincorporated areas which character are urban in character 10 Fiscal Impact Analysis General Fund cost and revenue implications — Assumes potential of+ 45 new units in Phase 2, Molasses Creek Condominiums development — Assumes new assessed value of$280,000 for new condominiums and/or townhomes — Assumes retention of all existing multi- family and condo development throughout site :r , Fiscal Impact Analysis Current Full Development Development Revenues $1,079,786 $1,251,319 Costs $1,118,289 $1,267,074 Surplus/ ($38,502) ($15,755) Deficit • 1atimated one-time parks development cost of$498,712 ve for- 2.217 new residents 11 Conclusion Best interest andg eneral welfare of City served: • Furthers City Business Goals by ensuring higher quality development and efficient urban services • Generally consistent with City annexation policies • Generally consistent with Boundary Review Board Objectives II Conclusion, continued Best interest and general welfare of City served • Small annual revenue cost at full development • Except for parks no other major service issues identified • Surface Water suggests using County's 2002 Surface Water Design Manual, Level II standards for future development 12 Recommendation The Administration recommends that Council: Accept the certified 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the expanded annexation area Authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package for this annexation to the Boundary Review Board for King County, and Support future zoning consistent with currently proposed 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments for this annexation area huy f r ,gypqiitiP'-r Ea ,' : �. r � piliTtilil, Et `"4:5: to 1 ' 4 .° 117 Jy y, 13 y 9 �lC #Qgri N L(i-e - : & HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. "4d€'7l.CQ A Professional Service Corporation o2l 3/ -0 D 7 David L.Halinen,P.E. 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Tacoma: (253)627-6680 davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com Fircrest,Washington 98466-6037 Seattle: (206)443-4684 Fax: (253)272-9876 December 3, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING CORRESPONDENCE Renton City Council c/o Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk(via email) 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 RE: The Proposed New Life Church—Aqua Barn Annexation Aqua Barn Ranch, Inc.'s Request for Prompt Council Approval of the Annexation Dear Council Members: On behalf of my client Aqua Barn Ranch, Inc. ("ABR"), I am writing in support of the proposed New Life Church —Aqua Barn Annexation. ABR is the owner of the two parcels of commercially zoned property totaling about 3.02 acres fronting on SR 169 and located at the southeast corner of the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Avenue SE (the "ABR Property"). The ABR Property lies in the heart of the proposed annexation. The ABR Property was a part of the previously contemplated, expanded Maplewood Annexation, an annexation that, as you may recall, had to be pared down to its original size in view of a Washington Supreme Court decision about a year ago. That paring down of the Maplewood Annexation eliminated the ABR Property and many other properties from its scope and delayed the entry of the ABR Property and other properties into the City. In view of that delay, ABR urges the Council to move the current New Life Church—Aqua Barn Annexation to completion as rapidly as possible. Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. r ` David L. H inen Enclosures cc: Aqua Barn Ranch, Inc. Don Erickson, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning C:\cfl2320\009\NLC-ABR Annexation\City Council LT1(12-3-07).doc 71'w - art_et 60,1„ °Amp/ alio-t PH To: Renton City Council /P-/3M0 7 From: Sarah Mallos, Resident, Maple Ridge Estates ,, /a, &/f 41 Date: December 3, 2007 Subject: Certified Petitions of Maple Ridge Estates I reside at 13972 SE 156th Street, Lot 1, of Maple Ridge Estates. I would ask the Renton City Council certify the signatures obtained by the petition committee. The petitions submitted attest to the desires of a majority of the residents here and I ask that you continue to include us in the New Life Church Annexation. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to call me at (425) 228-7985 if you have further questions. Nav e —4-Cou4 . • Alq 0- \ 1q31?-007 To: Renton City Council From: Antoinette Pratt, Resident,Maple Ridge Estates Date: December 3, 2007 Subject: Certified Petitions of Maple Ridge Estates I reside at 13964 SE 156th Street, Lot 2, of Maple Ridge Estates. I participated in the petition effort to go door to door gathering signatures from interested parties desiring to annex to the City of Renton. I will let you know that as I went out and spoke to my neighbors about annexing to Renton, many were very supportive of the effort. Many individuals stated that they did not want to be included in the Fairwood Incorporation effort and realized that services would be limited in a newly incorporated City. They also realized that taxes could potentially increase greatly in a City with limited commercial areas. I also should let you know that many individuals spoke about the recent development activity near Boeing. In fact, most looked forward to the new services that the City will be offering. Many of my neighbors understand that maintaining the status quo, i.e., remaining in unincorporated King County is no longer a viable option. This is why we formed a petition committee in our neighborhood. It is my understanding that we were very successful with our effort. We gathered % of the available signatures within Maple Ridge Estates. I would ask the Renton City Council certify the signatures obtained by the petition committee. The petitions submitted attest to the desires of a majority of the residents here and I ask that you continue to include us in the New Life Church Annexation. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to call me at (425) 235-6554 if you have further questions. Nu} - ague 20 To: Renton City Council / /3/ 0.7 pit • l (3k./vvv-1, fr•� ll �� From: Jacque Simms, Residen ape idgEstates � Date: December 3, 2007 Subject: Certified Petitions of Maple Ridge Estates I reside at 13954 SE 156th Street, Lot 3, of Maple Ridge Estates. I participated in the petition effort to go door to door gathering signatures from interested parties desiring to annex to the City of Renton. I will let you know that as I went out and spoke to my neighbors about annexing to Renton, many were very supportive of the effort. Many individuals stated that they did not want to be included in the Fairwood Incorporation effort and realized that services would be limited in a newly incorporated City. They also realized that taxes could potentially increase greatly in a City with limited commercial areas. I also should let you know that many individuals spoke about the recent development activity near Boeing. In fact, most looked forward to the new services that the City will be offering. Many of my neighbors understand that maintaining the status quo, i.e., remaining in unincorporated King County is no longer a viable option. This is why we formed a petition committee in our neighborhood. It is my understanding that we were very successful with our effort. We gathered % of the available signatures within Maple Ridge Estates. I would ask the Renton City Council certify the signatures obtained by the petition committee. The petitions submitted attest to the desires of a majority of the residents here and I ask that you continue to include us in the New Life Church Annexation. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to call me at (425) 235-5085 if you have further questions. • lr rc -N-vO� DUVALL AVENUE NE/ COAL CREEK PARKWAY SE TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE- NE SUNSET BLVD TO SE 95TH WAY PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE AND DETOUR December 3,2007 In early 2008 the City will begin construction on a major widening of Duvall Avenue NE and Coal Creek Parkway SE from NE Sunset Blvd to SE 95th Way, a 0.9-mile length of road. The project will widen the road from two to four and five lanes (including a two-way left-turn lane in the middle at Sunset Blvd that tapers down to a c-curb barrier towards the north end), construct curb, gutter, sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of Duvall Avenue NE and a signal at NE 21St Street, convert overhead power lines to underground and include safety features at specific locations, and will greatly alleviate current congestion. The overall construction cost estimate for constructing the project with Duvall Avenue NE and Coal Creek Parkway remaining open to traffic is approximately$14.6 million and estimated construction duration of two (2) calendar years. As an alternative to such an impact to the public (both financial and time-wise), the City's Transportation Division has considered jerforming the construction with a full road closure in effect between NE Sunset Blvd and SE 95t Way. They estimate the cost would be approximately$11 million, with an estimated construction duration of only one (1) calendar year. Thus, the savings in cost is estimated to be $3.6 million and one calendar year. (The Resolution calls for a thirteen-month closure to account for unforeseen contingencies during construction). The Transportation Systems Division has also had a traffic study conducted to evaluate the impacts of such a closure as compared to the alternative of leaving the road open during the construction. Based on this study and other engineering considerations, Transportation has concluded that leaving the road open during construction would not significantly reduce the congestion impacts that the closure and associated detours (via Union Avenue and 148th Avenue) would impose, because there would be so much disruption to the ongoing traffic on Duvall Avenue NE/Coal Creek Parkway due to construction operations. However, the one year reduction in the project duration is especially beneficial, in part because it ensures that the project is completed by the time the City of Newcastle's projects to the north are completed, rather than extending some months past their completion. The Administration is recommending that the Council adopt the proposed resolution for a full temporary closure of Duvall Avenue NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE, from NE Sunset Blvd to SE 95th Way, for a 13-month period beginning in February 2008 through February 2009, for the purpose of roadway and utility improvements. C:\DOCUME-d\BWalton\LOCALS-1\Temp\duvccpCouncil Hear Handout I2-03-07 doc fo ct CO -o SE 0 F` G SE gest City of Renton qe N • Duvall Widening Detour Plan w. May Creek Bridge OPEN SE 95th Wa E 95th h. c ` SF �` o NE 31st St 11111111111111•111111111Detour Route SE 95th PIsf, 33-.....:,- ......1 Local Access Route „__`_,¢ - z Street dosed it z N` - Q i arr uMrrs C 7 Q NE 25th PI NE26th z Ct NE 26th St ,y�l, Transportation o roo goo NE 2•th f...� t ( E , - a�� Pl� laiwweliWorks , ADO o �^-. x .. Prided Nov®bv iW7 NE 24th A h t't CD NE 23rd PI N 24ui NE 24tH St g n__L_ NE 22nd PI NE 23 NE 23rd NE 23rd E 102nd NE 22nd 1 >� Ct NE 23rd Ct NE 22nd St \tE 22nd NE 22nd PI NE 21st NE 22nd Ct I NE 21st St o NE 20 o NE 21st P NE 19th E 21st NE 20th 21s; Ct +\o sE 1C3th St S' N z w NE 20th N SE 104th St, y -c, NE 19th St u_, _ SE 104th ;°' NE 19th z z E' a a NE 18TH St N z o v LJ Q N D N N Whitman P Q > P NE 17th z / Q NE 17th SE 107 • •I _ ,I t NE Sunset o Qii . e,`� o =��a LL_ z ..,s\a 1 th St s 0 ii SSo4uoh Cd �e > l!c.,\,), \' Q cNE 17th St o z Lo cn i 2 aTIILth t'� SE 112th Si y I '1th o z L- SE 113th St SF 7 3 SF l '' � NE 11th Q z r' 7 0 o NE 11th St co E t^ SE 114th St o Ct NE10 N N N - . o Fr Otn Ct. ct ➢ NE 10th P T rn N ., 0 O ti N i /.7N09S300tl 1tl00� ' ti 'z• '•r +,.. • •`. a. ,f.-,.`> ''' '''''',•;.„ +� t 4t Zr'" ' 10380101a3UiS ` A" '•� _ �A '� `i (t 3100tl 509 700N9S 5 ''''''''• , ,aino9 ssa03v lvao1 .-... H ,Ø.,,,.. .1,-,„0. , $. j . n5 T r , ! ainoa anolaa `d�4j1� . ' w I. v Y�l^ y. '� • r ,F .5N i'-',%1'....,.•:,. ," ON30al c t ... - .. oa,�' '+ ,. �' Gs �' .., -.uw , d.�Y•''^' ay �ttia. i (� 0 ooz o 1 � 1� �; Yril � I ,0 "�. ;� ' '1. + ti ' r d i r n : r w ..�. t.. fin ,•:?.rs y♦y + „..4„:„!..1..., ya rr • ,• t y ' a 4 a • , W : • 1� '. .. -iT- �'4 ,r,, r ,i. . •fit' a — e� r . -'. -,'ii • m'. _ a- �, . 1 a . i. 4 % Y .°'`,� 1 1.E � , Z • ,t _ .�•• � NMOHS ION �� 1:,;'-","17'",,,-,4,-,•••,.\i- • r • a"IS HALO 3S '-', 49 r �(f 1► /• ,,5 ' �1 RI ,i�: 3NO.LScIN111Q c <4 • )y � ,t ( , ' - .iA q . O 4" , ;} °``' `~" i�, . . r �. `� _ Y �7 1,i.�. r`�,I,. �, d t + �. ,.. " '� •`)Y. .!=-4'...''''''.74. r i! +'qr ,l'� Or r r +• r� ,.� � '�` � r- NIS � ae' � M � � x--- n I '. 1;:4 of•' ''i ♦ " w N '1• , t • 9f,}:IN�, • • r',' ;:-� • • � � z.iy '6 1 1 '4,': § fin; - +� Z •' -�• 1 'r 4 ,. I.,e is..'''1''' ,s t E t •�^•.r c ham,,•. - 1... _ _ �/� 'w,' i' �'-� 7 .,,J�1'—I 'i ')3'� r '• +Yf • !+y'm•° 'IPS Y - - t '., , .;s " ,..;'‘..;:-'11.. .3 II 1��!. � '4-0:100g,.31� ! ti tY M ',.-.f.'.. "'.�;* • ,. (Q _ Yi ,. � + T -11'3 � r 1M • - i • a i, ,� , I ' �' YFh �� , p, '�r^ rr , y - a '' 1,. r ••— • sr-4 g �, . .. ..-Y.. :.LS paEZ'31 .' .-•i.,, 4. ,f-,'--/T11„,a ",.` .rt l0+ '' , 4�� I r� f', U 4 !' '1 .ii. { el q,: i ,x x ,--'1,,i-,..‘.., '' , i•, ) er`; r,•, 10, ' . r arty N. �° ./,4 'P i - iS'll#bb.3N a* ,.;rtl IS'H#L* 31� st ;44',' ! t !�n'e ." � - '_.' 0 w _ liiii, „': ,•r ' 0 ' 2,f.;,i '1,..-41441 -As. 3iN-Ok3NO LS is FAL,Q _SS ' ��, + ::./N•k,, _.•1,' ..‘,.,,n w m � MORS tai' , 'A21t/1N3D113�3 w '.----4:°\•7"-sN 1ON SLHO13H Yn ;" k , , 1N'3WdO�3A3a I t/212l31S • . M3 N ti ^� .i. • ! W •01,.,.....-7-i •! •- ` J y,' - -' , '�\ Vis, i4 ' nQ Hnoi.34 9? I'; �f_ r�I. i a 1' .I - 4'a'�a .; ... _, �`___--. Duvall Avenue NE Corridor : Traffic Analysis of Street Closure During Construction Renton City Council Meeting December 3, 2007 M i r a i I Introduction ❑ Present existing traffic conditions ❑ Summarize traffic conditions for each construction management option ❑ Conclusion M i r a i , . Existing Condition - AM Peak Hour I o Coal Creek Pkwy north of SE 1480 • `St May Valley Road- 5 .5thwy 5E Ma Valley Rd 259 ljEll a Unstable traffic conditions ti / - % 0 �S ‘31)—y 260 � NE 26th St o Coal Creek Pkwy / SE May I NE24thSt , . .g°pihSt Valley Road intersection- NE23rdSt V NE23rdSt\ I Z N..21st ST 300 I SF ® Poor Level of Service . ' ( �d e NE 19th St c a q W W / 3 O 2 C E 2 > a c Z > o Coal Creek Pkwy Total: m ' 9 SE 107th PI 4 Se„ e 1 ,480 veh 4,„ {„, S`'s tse`g`J•�' s'�a� D az MESO 311 .9 �267� t . I I 1 41 Legend 11461 4 9805 -Vehicles Per Hour • ' M i ra i 1 Treneportatlon Planning 6. Englne®ring „ ..„..,' :_.,-,...,.. ''. Ill '1. .. . . ... .,.. .: -... ........... ..... .. „„„.. SE /00t. ...„ , ST #24- -- -;---- ''''' _:_4-:-- 'rc. :::: :;7,..,„ .-- „:,.. t\1,-.„...r., -...-,,... ti' 11 ,,' ' :' ' : '' :., :I 0 jipit - . iv ....,___ ,..,,i' - is ...-- .., . , . li.5 , '''''''' ' .: - -7._-: ., ' .:- : E 23 d S-r - - . . ,L, :-,, „..,„....--,„ N r r . r.,,••=,- ., g',..; -:-... Fctait-,'''-' ::;-,;1*-4-'' -,..3; -- -, r 5 1 '' -iv. •,, ,:,:: , . , •• 1 LU '' ” 7 „., - .,,..4, w ., . m .. ....t-1 7,7_, k,,'• - , :.7.74,g1, . ,,,,„ ,..,10-. !?, --',,,,,,....-- -',.L -- -. .,-*.- :. -,-"A rc__.•:N -,. .„,r'.Y. ..,- .-..s-..:, : . : '''-,''...;1 - .at:-' ,,*:.., r'', J\ 'MI frs/jir\-- :,, 'rf; 3,,,=. 4.,t4, -,....:!..' .;'-.L ' ”,,, ",„..., ''..,,-..:, ;:-..Afr.,,,.;. ' . , L, .•',,,.. =1-7 ...?';-,1'' .,,is ' : ZAtSt ../1.: , ., ',, ,,,i,,,,-..-',.:-. ,. ,,,,. „,, ,.., -.- :1,-„,;_t.,-.' ,„ ,... , -- ,- ; (35__ .4.., -.7/ \-\:.-: ,--, - .;, - - 1B - . ---,-01, ... . , . , - ... -, .... „ . i i 04 .:.,, ;71-.7 ''''''''.'. ..,: r', ' :, .,• ii. 1 Lii Tr.' ..r. , Tafr .,-„..- , - ,. . ,:---:'- -1 — . ..,,,,...- „....., I .., g..-.?4.. i; IS '-'',-,--• - 1 ,,,-I" ..f.;' Iti- il ,,,, I -1 1 ci) , ..'- - > - ..--' 'a-..., '1---,,f. ''..-..--,;' ' --" .10, ' W=''., .- '- .. , 11 - ...,, .. . .... ... . .,, ,„ ., .,.., .. I.. -..„„..,..,... : :.f. , ,,,,,,, i 0 1.: - Prw'll r1-• :' , '"'"-:.. ;.:alti;; ,„r:-., ',.., ,.. .., '..:, I 'MIF >„ , .:* -., .. ;..ir...,7- -'''t , - :a 1 as r...,--.,..,„ ... . ,..,.' - n' w• '' • - . ...... , ,,-. . ' IN :,- ii: 141111 TA, •4 .. .a lik-- fi.-- ...„...,. ,..-- -..,,,, '..*''..', 7,-'• "-.. '--..! -.-:, , „ NE14th .S-Ti , - ' .' ,, Y . , il. LLI i'-' a I r, 111 rW " . .,-,; -if, - _ mis ./-. , .... NE 19th STi ) - .- --- ' ' • , - IP it --,''- :.r,„ ,-"- .-t 'il,.._,..--! -,,---'7 ,--...--,-,-......, ,1 4 , ,....t.ylli WTI' i.. ;-_- 1 . .. -1--- ' ' '-- - .--:' ,,, t:, .,,* . 1 :' < -..,:. ' -- . ,,,.., ' 4 iti Cr ':''': ''''''e W ' ' fi';kLi ' ' ''''''''''::t r'' II 7.11,,. :/ . r•, . '.. .1k. ,, .... ..: . ,. ...i.x., .. . .. . , .. ' • .t,. ,. - .. - ' ''LL ir '',.*1 ',1 ': , i , gilL 4,, , n• ' ,, ., '',.,. . , „.,,. ,- • .. .,, iiiii Closure of D E Avee o Close Duvall Ave NE g t5t from SR 900 (SE 107th 1,370 PI) to south of SE 95th Sth Wy r,z, SE Ma Va1leyRd Rd 741 Way. v 3 _.' 326 o Local and regional traffic 740 O Pit NE 26th St � . 0th NE 24th St _ St f diverted to Union Ave NE NE23rdSt o opNE23rdSt \ 330 o Modify the existing stop NE 21st ST 2 = Z r( control at Coal Creek g o NE 19th St o z g v Z / ; 9a w C m` > Z i'Pkwy/SE 95th Street Q SE 107th PI LL SF . intersection: P`' RP`°G rl * D``o •SPre(, 4 „0.-5. Ku Ra ® --- ■ No control on EB 5^ • Q Legend approach and stop .22 — Call -Vehicles Per Hour control on NB and SB approaches. I '� ' r a ' I Transport®U. on PI®nnin® 6 Enc inmertng at FM ° '' ' i Union AVE N E #3 # ' rg 1V Aa�� N;S ,tet, a" , ■ 0 '''. " I wCO tSi ,� a. ea �. ,"yam' sa` k. 7At y.� igitr v.4-iii E r r{ �GD ,_ Y,r . , -r w: :n -Ne es... Coal Creek PKWY SE # - . Caa . w 1 ,. Coal CI .....k-, r.er 'I �' r. ( } Fav / 111 it It £t%tx„44'. 14 ,:i ip //, '., 1::;!:ii....... w v 'n - Closure of D Ave NE o Key Findings a 76% of the diverted trips would use Union Avenue NE and SE 95th Street. a Some residents would travel longer distances. a The queue on Union Ave NE would be at Sierra Heights Elementary School . a Traffic conditions on WB SE May Valley Road would remain approximately the same. IM i ra i Tr®n®portation Punning 6 Engineering s . . . . Duvall Qve NE en During Construction ❑ Open Duvall Ave NE SE 91st 5t at all times during N s sthw construction with 4301 y SEMa VaIIeyRd 50% capacity. 11 g 1 , A ❑ 25% of Duvall Ave - 430 p�„` `� NE 26th 5t NE traffic would shift NE 23rd St NE23rd5t '''''.\ ( to Union Ave NE and b NE 21st ST z z Z se�$ Z Z > ( Field Ave NE/SE r r NE19thSt/ s w E L 3 w z L d z 100th Street. C a m z q Q a SE 107th PI ,� Sic. ❑ Modify Coal Creek "'t �FS4nsP,6,46 BVv�o ® o'4:,,, 0 fillWr , Pkwy SE/SE 95th _/ , , (� NES�o� t28 dh9a 267 I Street intersection to 1146 N Legend be an all-way stop. 9805 Vehicles Per Hour IM i r a i I Ta +por6tion5 Engineering +'�,�, r 03 k RS ;11 - L.. gt,ter,';..'".1'.-. Jr ti � uM ( .«.. �, ' .- R.y +y". rrv$ tpy Ev+" , - "r . t. rte,w~ c oa��s �-r i ,11 r � ' g } e J c • L� w a• 14 4 -y. 4z T e IS lo- - xirs�o � 5 � ''.',,,?:1V-1,i,'.'. .;•':.''''''..;'.1';17 T s � ttr.. # ; 141-1'-'1*fleTti ua ;ip .Y; n ry _ 1 i vna, e� � 'd :.fi,; � r. %,. ... *� , . a.. u... 'M'. T+d. e:v_�IiPNe. uzx" Y ;"3;c.r-...„ + ` E 2 4th ST # t �E 24th ;�f}� •4F e x P _. °r _ ' w ;i =cam _ .. • a . _a s, eY `�� �, 5:e X16..-`t Duvall ANE emil vn During e Construction o Key Findings • Shorter queue on Coal Creek Parkway SE to SE 100th Street. ® The traffic back-up on Union Ave NE is slightly shorter than the closure option. • Traffic conditions on WB SE May Valley Road would remain approximately the same. ■ NE 24th Street and SE 100th Street would experience greater traffic volumes. IMirail 7 Transportation i®nn+ng s Engineering 5 sw2«....v.�sY`�.Yaswrka>il"•�o°'� •'25.�Su'w`.Y�*wFt.�...u£KLm.�'a.ndJ.J:.�.lw.....,.��a��.«ua'kv....,.._...s....�.w.. E's.�vi Ya_.u¢..uC_.Y3.Y&.w.�.r..m...^.^�v4.d.,�."'u:.1YeaGw�..:....a -.E.v�r✓x�...,..a_cs.._:....c...xa s..=.s...V_k,w,_..•r. ..x..v.....{.y.._. .L.x.......�.a_:... .._.,.... ...... s...✓w..,.a.,.wr w+�+....._.. .�....h.+o_._... ,..v...n. um Travel Analysis :',1 SE91stSt Travel Time SEya Valley Rd Site A Site B \.-4 —>. i 2007 AM Peak 10.1 min 20.5 min �., Hour Existing A G I r NE 26th St CNElose Duvall Ave 13.2 min 9.9 min NE23rdS Z NE21stST sF Duvall Ave NE ( 44 Open During 7.9 min 14.5 min c NE 19th St tom+ • d/9y Construction 00w m A 1 r SE 107th PI se„ Nuc 're,),.o, i elf 4,049 _.•••••1 a . ( M i r a i I TPannpora clon Engnnepring Conclusions ❑ Duvall Ave closure would significantly increase traffic on Union Ave NE. ❑ Both closure and open options would not significantly increase the travel time for neighborhood residents. o Traffic on neighborhood streets would increase under the open option . ❑ Duvall Ave will operate at LOS C or better when completed . I M i r a i l Transportation F'1nn4n €n> Inppr•!n Duvall Ave. Street Widening Project Public Outreach During Project ❖ Web Page ❖ Traffic Signage ❖ Telephone Hotline ❖ Early Proactive Information ❖ Media Public Hearing — Dec. 3, 2007 Duvall Ave. Street Closing Staff Presentation + Project Description Traffic Analysis ❖ Traffic and Safety Measures Public Outreach During Project Summary Duvall Avenue NE Closure Comparison "Open" to through traffic Closed to through traffic construction time 480 working days 240 working days trips per hour, Renton to unchanged unchanged Newcastle impact on residents and 2 years 1 year businesses length of queues 10% longer 20% longer none 1 mile increase in travel distance, local increase in travel distance, none none regional aggregate time of transit no change no change traffic on local streets increased, through trips increased, internal trips closures on Duvall during frequent continuous construction access to Sierra Heights seldom affected seldom affected Elementary completion of construction no yes matches Newcastle completion of construction no yes before start of 1405 bu vu t( C1, iei1e7 4 • 1-7t3 ?,001 From: Reshma Shah<reshahl@yahoo.com> To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/3/2007 11:17:23 AM Subject: To City Council in Care of City Clerk-Duvall Ave. NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE Closure Meeting Hi, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but would like to voice my concerns about the 'Full temporary closure of Duvall Ave. NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE, from NE Sunset Blvd. to SE 95th Way, for a 13-month period beginning in February 2008 through February 2009.' I'm assuming it's more of a complete closure b/c in my opinion 12 or more months is not temporary. 1. I am worried about the impact of through traffic in Sum merwind. In the past when there have been closures on surrounding main streets, the traffic has increased in our neighborhood. The people cutting through our neighborhood do not follow speed limits or safety. They just want to get through as quickly as possible. Our neighborhood is concerned for the safety of our kids. I can't tell you how many times we've seen people speed through while our kids our waiting for the school bus. Temporary speed bumps would be an option. 2. One of the detours is on Union which goes right by Sierra Heights Elementary. What is the plan to insure the safety of our children while there is increased traffic. Also, the road is already congested, with the additional traffic, so what guarantees do you have that our school buses will be able to get to school and back home in a timely manner? This morning's Coal Creek closure impacting school buses and traffic. What plans have the schools and city worked out to make transportation run smoothly during the closure? Why is the closure so long for such a small stretch of road. Coal Creek was not shut down completely when the road was expanded near the Olympus development, so how is this any different? I know that we all have to adjust to differently situations, but a closure for over a year seems extreme for the amount of road being built. Also, what guarantees are there that the project would be finished in 12 or 13 months? I would like to know and be assured that the City of Renton has done complete studies on the impact of such a closure before they begin construction. The closure would not only affect traffic, but also local business. Coal Creek/Duvall is a major artery for the Highlands and any long term closure should be thoroughly analyzed. Thank you for your time. Reshma Shah Summerwind Resident Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs a'Wra : 'P 14 From: "'Brad Zylstra'<bmrbz@earthlink.net>"<bmrbz@earthlink.net> byvvAft-n dc12- , To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/21/2007 8:46:49 AM Subject: Councilmembers When it comes to the question of rerouting traffic for the questionable closure of Coal Cr. Pkway at May Valley Bridge, please consider this... What is best for our community. Does the planned reroute put our families, friends, and children in danger? If a child is injured due to poor city planning and taking measures "just to save a buck,"can you imagine the cost of a lawsuit? I'm a proud member of the Renton community. Please do not put our kids in jeapardy or turn our neighborhoods into highways. Thank You, Brad Zylstra CC: <bmrbz@earthlink.net> l tv t I Coria f From: <chowbaybestar206@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/24/2007 9:58:51 PM Dear Renton City Council Members: I would like to voice my concern on the proposal of closing the stretch of Duvall Ave NE north of Sunset Blvd. I am against the closure as a business owner and residence. I understand the proposal needs to be voted by the City Council. I would like to make sure you are aware of the lack of public hearing on this important matter that impact many of City of Renton residences. The one public meeting scheduled on 11/7/07 did not go out to many impacted residences and none of the businesses knew about it. There has not been enough study and data to support the! saving claimed by the transportation project team. There is not enough mitigation in place to ensure smooth traffic and safety in the area. Closure of a major road for one year is not an option. The project team should come up with alternate proposal without major impact to the area. In City of Renton Web Site: win order to limit the construction duration to about one year, Transportation staff will be recommending to the City Council that Duvall Avenue NE/Coal Creek Parkway be closed to through traffic between Sunset and SE 95th Way beginning in early 2008 and lasting for approximately twelve months. Main detours for traffic would be via Sunset, 148th Ave NE and May Valley Road east of the project area, and via Sunset and Union Ave NE west of the project area./E Why you should vote NO - Public meeting notice (11/7/07)was not sent to all impacted residences and businesses - Impact to! Sierra Height Elementary school is not mitigated with detour - Impact to stretch of Union Ave. is not mitigated - Impact to Summer Wind residence is not adequately addressed - Not offering incentive to Contractor to finish early -Coal Creek Parkway will not be closed during the construction; all traffic will be diverted to residential areas. Eusiehe. CticIw • t-LN From: "'Maxine Leese'<mmleese@comcast.net>"<mmleese@comcast.net> 6 CY1 To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/25/2007 8:05:47 PM Subject: Councilmembers I have been alerted to the possibility of closing Duval Ave and rerouting traffic through the Sierra Heights neighborhood for an entire year while the new bridge is under construction. Although my children no longer attend Sierra Heights elementary school I am non-the-less concerned for the safety of the many students and staff who would be greatly impacted by this possible detour. Although I don not live in that immediate neighborhood, I do walk it regularly and know that we already have streams of cars coming down the Union hill each morning trying to avoid the back-up on Duval. This increased traffic puts hundreds of young children at risk. Many children walk to school alone and are not mature enough to concern themselves with the dangers of so much traffic, including irate drivers who are in a hurry and outraged by the traffic back-up they will be dealing with. Those drivers have little concern for children needing to cross streets to get to school. Please do NOT put this quiet neighborhood in a state of turmoil and the lives of so many young children at unnecessary risk. Keep the Coal Creek traffic where it belongs, out of our quiet neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Maxine Leese CC: <mmleese@comcast.net> 1-7.1. 1 Tool 10415— 147`h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 November 27,2007 CITY OF RENTON Renton City Council NOV 3 0 2007 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVE CITY CLERK'S oFFICE RE: Closure of Coal Creek Parkway Dear City Councilpersons: We would like to comment on Renton's proposed Coal Creek Parkway closing from February 2008 to February 2009. We live in King County—just off 148th Avenue SE. Our street-- 147`h Avenue SE—is a cul-de-sac with only one entrance/exit. We were informea that the"proposed" detours were going down Union Avenue or 148`h Avenue SE. Currently, traffic using 148`h and Coal Creek Parkway come from Kent and Fairwood as well as within this area. They do this to avoid the 1-405 mess. A contractor is currently working on a new bridge over May Creek. That is causing traffic delays on Coal Creek Parkway and May Valley Road. The May Valley Road traffic(at 7 am)backs up onto 148th Avenue SE up to the traffic signal at SR 900. With the additional traffic that will come down 148`h/Nile,we won't be able to get out of our street onto l48`h. Is this what you want? We were told that one of the solutions would be to make a 4-way stop at SE May Valley Road and 148`h Avenue SE. To us, that will create a bigger mess. Traffic will be backed up further. We know that someone has to put up with the additional detoured traffic—but why us? Can't you do what Newcastle is doing—keep the existing road open,but concentrate on one direction. Then once that additional lane is complete, work on the other lane. This will keep the additional traffic off 148`h Avenue SE. Thank you for any consideration you give this proposal. Sincerely, MaC/GeeeJ�{��[\�//)JD/MJy/�1 �// 11.4 Michael F. Donnelly Claudia R. Donnelly Cc: King Count DOT Reagan Dunn's Office WSDOT 12130-001 UV1ANpUnttiAXL From: Glenn Gesell glenngesell@comcast.net> <glenngesell@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/3/2007 1:54:30 PM Subject: Closure of Coal Creek Parkway I am writing to provide my input on the potential closure of Coal Creek Parkway/Duvall between Sunset Blvd. and 95th. I have several concerns about this potential closure, and believe that it is in the interest of the City of Renton and all of our residents to find an alternative. The primary concerns and risks we will have if Duvall is closed are: 1) Safety at Sierra Heights Elementary-the current proposal of using Union Ave. as the detour route sounds very inappropriate. Sierra Heights Elementary has over 600 students, many of whom are walkers. Do you really think it is wise or responsible to route so much rush hour traffic past one of city's largest elementary schools? The increased traffic on Union would greatly raise the risk of injury to these students. 2) Litigation Risk-if there is a single accident involving a student near Sierra Heights Elementary, the City of Renton will likely lose far more than the $3 million in hopeful savings by closing Duvall. I expect that any litigation brought against the city would point out that it should have been obvious that routing so much traffic through a school zone would greatly increase the likelihood of an accident. With our litigious society and favorable laws in WA state for plaintiffs against the state and local governments, I believe that if this plan goes forward, the City of Renton will definitely be opening itself up to much greater liability. 3) Busing - have you identified the impact this will have on school busing to Sierra Heights as well as other schools? Sunset will be very crowded south bound in the mornings. In addition to Sierra Heights, buses drive south on Sunset to McKnight and Kennydale. With the increase in traffic on Sunset and Union, how will you accommodate the busing requirements to these schools? 4) Loss of business in Highlands-if Duvall is closed, I would not expect any residents of Newcastle to drive into the Highlands for Shopping or other needs. The businesses in the area would be overly impacted by this closure. Have you estimated how much the loss of tax revenue would be from closing Duvall? This loss would erode the potential $3 million in savings. I believe that the most appropriate action is to leave Duvall open during the construction. I understand that this may cost up to $3 million more than if Duvall were to be closed. However, that is a small price to pay for the safety of our children. I strongly urge the city council to reject the idea of closing Duvall during this project, and approve the additional funds necessary to keep it open. Thank you for your consideration, Glenn Gesell CC: <glenngesell@comcast.net> butvaLit 01,�-�.w+.- l 1-f • � J3//_007 From: "'Rebecca Gallagher'<jamesandrebecca@comcast.net>" J J Qom- 1{1 " <jamesandrebecca@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/3/2007 5:02:58 PM Subject: Councilmembers My message is in regards to the closure of Coal Creek Parkway due to contstruction scheduled to happen February 2008. I am a resident of the Summerwind neighborhood just off of Coal creek and Duvall and use Coal Creek Pkwy for access to my son's preschool and my daughter's elementary school. I completely disagree with the option to close Coal creek for a year while this construction is completed. Five years or so ago when Phase 1 was completed, the road was not closed and although traffic was delayed, there was access. Today after Coal Creek needed to be closed for a short time due to a mud slide-traffic was horrendous! It took 1 hour for the school bus to take my daughter from Summerwind to Kennydale! It took 45 minutes to get from my neighborhood to Factoria. This is unacceptable to impose these conditions on residents of Renton for a whole year. Weather related closures and emergency situations that are temporary and hourly, even daily, are acceptable. But 12 months to not have any access to this road is an outrage. Please consider my position on this issue as you plan ahead. -Rebecca Gallagher 5125 NE 17th Street Renton, WA 98059 CC: <jamesandrebecca@comcast.net> R �2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Ala: , Submitting Data: ; For Agenda of: December 3, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS DepartmentNoir Staff Contact Kathy Keolker, Mayor Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Reappointments to Advisory Commission on Diversity: Correspondence.. Ms. Sandel Demastus Ordinance Mr. Raymond Lam Resolution Mr. Charles Thomas Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated , od Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Keolker reappoints the following to the Advisory Commission on Diversity: Ms. Sandel Demastus, 1137 Harrington Ave NE, Renton, WA 98058, for a term expiring December 31, 2008. Mr. Raymond Lam, 511 Rosario PINE, Renton, WA 98059, for a term expiring December 31, 2009. Mr. Charles Thomas, 4408 NE 11th St, Renton, WA 98059, for a term expiring December 31, 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Keolker's reappointments of Ms. Sandel Demastus, Mr. Raymond Lam, and Mr. Charles Thomas to the Advisory Commission on Diversity. kao 4#6.0 • • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #kkhool : C; , Submitting Data: For Agenda of: December 3, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development Staff Contact Alex Pietsch (x6592) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. 2008 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Correspondence.. Positions Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Issue Paper Information 2008 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Committee of the Whole Legal Dept Finance Dept Other kills/Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted N/A Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Prior to each state legislative session, the City Council considers documents which summarize the City's positions on state issues. The State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions serve as guidance for City staff as it attempts to work with the Legislature to achieve the City's goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the 2008 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions as proposed. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, � NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC emi PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 27, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: --/C` Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Suzanne Dale Estey(x6591) SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON 2008 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND STATEMENT OF POLICY POSITIONS Prior to the start of each state legislative session, the City Council considers an agenda outlining "o' legislative priorities. In preparing an agenda for Council consideration, the Administration has attempted to incorporate input from City Council Members and department heads, review legislative priorities of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and other organizations and associations, and evaluate legislative issues carried forward from previous years. The City of Renton's 2008 Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions are divided as follows: 1. The 2008 State Legislative Agenda includes "Major Issues" -- items Renton considers to be extremely important—enough so to devote major efforts and advocacy toward having legislative and/or budget provisions enacted in 2008. Renton has placed these in a separate handout and will focus most of its advocacy time and energy on these items. 2. The 2008 Statement of Policy Positions -- Support/Oppose List includes items Renton considers very important. The City will use time and effort and join others in strongly supporting beneficial measures or strongly opposing enactment of those with adverse impact. 3. The 2008 Statement of Policy Positions -- Track/Monitor List includes issues the City will track and monitor. As these issues evolve, the City may involve itself to a greater degree if necessary. When the Washington State Legislature convenes its 60-day session in January 2008 and moves forward, other issues may emerge that impact the City. The Administration will provide updates ,,,, on these issues to Council on a regular basis. 2008 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 2 November 27, 2007 In a broad sense, the 2008 State Legislative Agenda emphasizes Renton's goals of moving forward on major issues such as transportation and economic development. The Agenda also outlines the City's desire for local control and flexibility, and notes Renton's opposition to measures that create unfunded mandates or pre-empt local authority. cc: Jay Covington,CAO Administrators Doug Levy,Legislative Consultant Suzanne Dale Estey,EDNSP Director ( :Y o • ♦ � � � O� N� City of Renton 2008 State Legislative Agenda • • .` R i rierr. aer • BASIC PREMISES The City of Renton's positions on state legislation will reflect the following premises established by the Renton City Council over the past legislative sessions: • All proposed legislation should provide local elected officials maximum flexibility in addressing community needs and allowing cities to shape local programs and services. • The City strongly opposes any imposition of new or expanded requirements on local governments without adequate funding to support these programs, as required by State law (RCW 43.135.060). • Renton urges the Legislature to refrain from imposing or increasing fees on municipal services to fund State regulatory activities. • The City strives to maintain local control, especially in areas such as local government taxation and financing, rights-of-way management, and land use and zoning matters. MAJOR ISSUES Transportation Solutions With the voters' rejection of Proposition 1, the "Roads & Transit" measure, on November 6, Renton is one of many Central Puget Sound jurisdictions with continued concerns about finding solutions to regional and state transportation challenges. It is clear that the significant needs will not go away, with major congestion, mobility, and capacity issues gripping our region. While the City understands and respects the significant safety issues surrounding regional mega-projects such as the 520 Bridge and the Alaska Way Viaduct, Interstate 405 between Renton and Bellevue remains the most congested stretch of freeway in the state, with more than 12 hours of congestion each day. The I-405/SR 167 interchange remains the most congested interchange in the state. Renton strongly encourages the Legislature not to lose sight of one of its core missions to "fix the worst first." Looking ahead to the 2008 Session, the City of Renton will: Work to protect funding for state projects: As Governor Gregoire and some state transportation leaders are moving ahead with discussions about how to fully finance a rebuild of the State Route 520 floating bridge, Renton wants to ensure that this is done in a way that does not undermine existing investments on the 1-405 corridor and for other 2005 "Transportation Partnership Act" projects that the State has already agreed to fund. Renton has been pleased to hear key transportation leaders have agreed they do not want to sacrifice funds from 2005 TPA projects. Retain flexibility for Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) and Sound Transit (ST): With the Proposition 1 defeat, state statute now offers a fair amount of flexibility for the RTID and ST. The two agencies can go back to the ballot together or separately. Additionally, the RTID can go back to the ballot with a multi-county "roads" measure or individual counties can propose a package to the voters. Renton asks state legislators to retain the flexibility that is in the current statutes, so that officials in the Central Puget Sound have discretion to decide what steps to take next with voters in the region. Seek freight mobility project funding - SW 2r Street/Strander Boulevard: Renton will continue to seek funding opportunities for this project, though the City recognizes that 2008 is unlikely to be a "new investment" year in the Transportation Budget. The Legislature is in the midst of a freight investment study that was to have been completed in December but has now been delayed to Summer 2008. Track transportation "governance" for the Central Puget Sound: The Legislature may again consider recommendations as to who should be in charge of transportation in the Central Puget Sound and whether there should be a "gate-keeping" function to decide when transportation measures around the region get to the ballot. Because transportation is such a critical issue for Renton, the City will be actively involved in legislative discuss' ; reviewing how a new regional entity will impact transportation providers. City of Renton 2008 State Legislative Agenda Economic Development/Infrastructure Financing Funding for general and "core" infrastructure needs, as well as infrastructure investments that lay the groundwork for economic development, is a high priority not only for the City of Renton but also for the Association of Washington Cities (AWC). Renton joins AWC, a coalition of individual cities, and others in bringing to the 2008 ,islature a series of ideas and options for enhancing funding of general infrastructure needs that will help with 1iness retention and recruitment projects. Renton will support legislation to: • Enhance funding of existing infrastructure programs, most of which are significantly "over-subscribed." The demands of growth, the heavy burdens on the City's transportation system, new stormwater requirements from the State— all of these have capital facilities costs that are making the infrastructure crisis even more severe. • Enhance, retain, and retool infrastructure programs that are geared toward economic development. This includes retaining and retooling the Job Development Fund, ensuring reliable funding for the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB), and further "urbanizing" CERB to give it more applicability to jurisdictions such as Renton. • Expedite the approval process for existing grants and loans. Renton supports legislation that expedites the approval process for Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) loan projects that have been approved by the Public Works Board and then require a subsequent round of legislative approval. The Legislature has never removed a PWTF project from the list, but its approval process often costs projects a construction cycle, which is an expensive "time and money" delay. Strengthening the Aerospace Industry As the first city to join the association, Renton strongly supports the efforts of the Aerospace Futures Alliance (AFA) to strengthen the aerospace industry across Washington. Priority issues for AFA include, among others: supporting tax policies that encourage the growth and long-term health of the industry; improving transportation infrastructure; enhancing training and education to support the aerospace workforce; and addressing rapidly ^,.reasing health care costs. Renton has been proud to be the home of The Boeing Company for over 65 years. first commercial jet, the Boeing 707, was made in Renton, and the best selling jets in history have been assembled in Renton ever since. Renton is now home to three of the company's six business units: Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Boeing Capital, and Boeing's Shared Services Group. Renton is also the home of a diverse array of aerospace suppliers. Renton will continue to support legislation that enables Boeing and other aerospace companies to thrive. Small Business Assistance Small Business Development Center (SBDC) — Operating Budget Funds: In the Summer of 2007, the first-ever Small Business Development Center opened in Renton, operating out of the Renton Technical College (RTC) campus. The $73,493 annual cost of operating the SBDC program is being covered by contributions from the RTC, the Renton Chamber of Commerce, and the City of Renton, as well as First Savings and Frontier Banks. The Renton SBDC will help strengthen Renton's economic vitality by providing one-on-one confidential assistance to individuals, small businesses, and other entrepreneurs at no charge. The City, Chamber, and RTC strongly believe the State should be a partner in the SBDC effort in Renton as it has been in other SBDC programs around the state. Renton joins the Chamber and RTC in seeking $50,000 in the 2008 Supplemental Operating Budget to help the Small Business Development Center in Renton continue to survive and flourish. Workforce Development Employment-Based English as a Second Language (ESL) Training— Operating Budget Funds: Many employers who are faced with a high rate of job vacancies due to a lack of skilled employees are finding it necessary to consider alternative ways of training existing employees to take on more advanced responsibilities. Employment- sed ESL training helps workers overcome barriers such as transportation and child care and can lead an `war migrant or refugee to English proficiency quicker when using work-based materials. Having employment based ESL for low-wage working immigrants and refugees can open up new career opportunities that lead them to higher wage employment. Renton joins Renton Technical College and the Renton Chamber of Commerce in seeking restoration of state funding for workplace-based ESL programs. City of Renton 2008 State Legislative Agenda Ammimmemosseimmor City of Renton 2008 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions The City of Renton's 2008 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions are divided as follows: 1. The 2008 State Legislative Agenda includes "Major Issues" -- items Renton considers to be extremely important -- enough so to devote major efforts and advocacy toward having legislative and/or budget provisions enacted in 2008. Renton has placed these in a separate handout and will focus most of its advocacy time and energy on these items. 2. The 2008 Statement of Policy Positions -- Support/Oppose List includes items Renton considers very important. The City will use time and effort and join others in strongly supporting beneficial measures or strongly opposing enactment of those with adverse impact. 3. The 2008 Statement of Policy Positions -- Track/Monitor List includes issues the City will track and monitor. As these issues evolve, the City may involve itself to a greater degree if necessary. 1 City of Renton 2008 Statement of Policy Positions — Support/Oppose List Criminal Justice/Courts/Jails/Law Enforcement • Tools for funding new jails: By the year 2010, King County is canceling its contracts with cities to hold misdemeanors in the County's jail facilities. The reality is that cities in King County will need to build facilities with an estimated 1,400 to 1,500 beds for misdemeanants. While Renton has a current jail facility for misdemeanors, the City is looking at contracting with a consortium of other South King County jurisdictions such as Federal Way, Tukwila, Des Moines, and Auburn to build a new jail facility. This will require significant capital resources. For that reason, Renton is supportive of efforts a number of King County cities to seek jail funding tools and options from the State Legislature. • Sex offender monitoring, sentencing: The recent and tragic events that unfolded with the Adhahn murder in Tacoma have sparked a series of debates among state lawmakers as to how much further the State should go in monitoring sex offenders, requiring them to wear Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) tracking devices, and more. A Governor's Task Force has just issued a report recommending that the Legislature focus on additional monitoring and funding of Level 1 sex offenders, and require more offenders to wear GPS devices. There also is a recommendation for having offenders tested for DNA upon holding or incarceration. Renton is open to looking at new ways to monitor, track, sentence, and restrict the movements of sex offenders who can be dangerous to communities and the most vulnerable children and adults. However, the City wants to ensure that new tools for addressing sex offenders do not come with "unfunded mandate" costs or staffing burdens for local government. • Enhanced felony penalties for fleeing a crime scene and eluding police officers: The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) and other stakeholders will work with lawmakers on this measure, which was proposed in 2007 but did not pass. Renton supports enhanced penalties for felony eluding of police officers. • Protecting privacy of rank-and-file police officers: Law enforcement groups may bring to the 2008 Legislature a measure that would prohibit the disclosure of private information regarding rank-and-file police officers (such as Social Security Number). Renton will support this measure if it arises. • Seek state funding assistance to deal with escalating medical costs of housing jail offenders: Renton, like several other cities, is coping with cost increases in housing offenders at its municipal jail —with many being given "mandatory minimum" sentences that leave local jurisdictions little or no policy discretion whether or not to take the prisoners. Thus, Renton will support the AWC, other cities and counties in pressing the State to help with these rapidly-rising medical costs. Fire Prevention and Emergency Services/HazMat Support items brought forward by Washington Fire Chiefs: Renton will support a series of bills the Washington Fire Chiefs Association is working on in preparation for the 2008 Session. These include: 1) funding for regional hazardous materials teams to deal with Chemical, Biological, Radioactive, Nuclear, and Explosive materials (CBRNE); 2) legislation to require that 'inw►, all cigarettes sold in the State of Washington are manufactured with a fire-retardant material — this has been enacted in other states and major tobacco companies agree with this proposal; 3) 2 legislation allowing cities to require sprinklers in all residences; and 4) exempting the purchase of fire equipment from sales tax. Fire Chiefs recognize that considerable funding is needed for Nod the CBRNE initiative and it is likely a multi-year project. GMA/Housing/Annexation/Land Use and Permitting • Affordable housing: With housing costs in our state—and most acutely in the Puget Sound region —continuing to soar, state lawmakers and stakeholder groups that work closely with the Legislature are actively discussing potential options to address this growing problem. Groups of legislators, an AWC advisory group, a Prosperity Partnership subcommittee, and the Low-Income Housing Alliance are among those reviewing proposals. These include sizable increases in the Housing Trust Fund, market-driven tax incentives, and more. Four specific affordable housing proposals Renton will support are: 1) a measure that would provide state B&O tax credits to employers who provide housing assistance near the work site for their employees; 2) increases in the Housing Trust Fund; and 3) a mobile home park "preservation" bill that uses tax incentives to park owners to dissuade them from selling these parks —or to convince them to sell the parks to those who would continue to utilize them for mobile home purposes. • Buildable lands: In recent years, the Washington Association of Realtors has brought the Legislature a package of bills that would require "no net loss of density" systems to be put in place within urban growth areas. The legislation has typically asked local governments to do more— more data collection, more measuring of the land supply in their countywide planning policies —without more funding. Renton loins the AWC, other cities, counties and , apri others in resisting buildable lands statutory changes that place new unfunded expectations and requirements on cities and other local governments. • Factoring climate change measurements into Growth Management Act (GMA) planning: The environmental group FutureWise has approached the AWC on this issue, seeking discussions with cities as to how local jurisdictions could begin to look at climate- change impacts and measure impacts such as carbon emissions within their GMA comprehensive plans and countywide planning policies. This may be a case of good intentions, but there are cost concerns and logistical concerns with how cities and counties would implement this. Renton will work with AWC and other local jurisdictions on this issue, but will want to ensure that no new requirements are placed in state law without appropriate funds to cover the new requirements. Stormwater • NPDES Phase II requirements: Renton and numerous other cities and counties that are subject to new stormwater management rules under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II requirements of the Clean Water Act have appealed components of the rules as issued by the Department of Ecology. With the potential for settlement discussions to occur, Renton may support any legislative remedies that emerge from those discussions. 3 Human and Social Services ``r"'' • Full funding of"2-1-1" system: Renton will support continued efforts to obtain state funds to help fully fund the new 2-1-1 emergency communications system to help seniors, the disabled, and vulnerable populations within Washington State access social services. • Support pursuit of mental health "parity" funds: Renton will support efforts by King County to ensure that mental health funding is better aligned with the county's population and the mental health services impact it is asked to address. Human services staff in the county and in various cities do not feel that is the case with current funding formulas. • Legislation dealing with homelessness: In recent sessions, the Legislature has enacted the "2163" legislation calling for 10-year plans to end homelessness, and followed that up with enhanced funding for homelessness prevention efforts. Renton encourages lawmakers to give these processes time to work, and to refrain from additional legislation, such as mandating additional homelessness counts that require staff time, money, and resources (one count per year is currently required and while Renton is complying, not all jurisdictions are as of yet). LEOFF/PERS/Employee Services Issues • LEOFF 2 enhancement: In 2008, groups representing police, firefighters, and fire chiefs will bring forward legislation that establishes a future funding source for LEOFF 2 system enhancements. While the legislation has not yet been drafted, AWC and individual cities believe it may also include a reference to providing medical coverage to LEOFF 2 system enrollees. Renton values its employees, but does have cost concerns regarding LEOFF 2 *me enhancements on top of a series of LEOFF 2 and PERS rate increases that already have occurred in recent years. With current rate increases alone, Renton projects a $1.8 million increase in costs over a two-year period. Renton will work through AWC in this area. • Family and Medical leave: As the Legislature prepares to return in 2008, an interim Task Force is considering ideas and recommendations as to how to fund a new state Family Leave program enacted through the passage of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5659 (E2SSB 5659) during the 2007 Session. Renton will join with other cities in working this issue through the AWC. While Renton values its employees and wants them to have leave time available to spend with a newborn or ill family member, the City wants to ensure that the financing of a new program does not result in significant new unfunded costs for local governments. • LEOFF 1 retirees: Renton has 98 retired LEOFF 1 employees, and 11 active employees who are eligible for the LEOFF 1 retirement program. Like many other cities, Renton continues to hope there could be a way for the State to assist in addressing the medical costs for LEOFF 1. Renton will work through AWC in this area. 4 General Government ,4100, • Requiring that all Executive Sessions be tape-recorded: The City has concerns with a proposal from the Attorney General's Office on this issue. Renton believes in open and accountable government, but also wants to ensure that very sensitive matters involving property, negotiations, and personnel can continue to be discussed in Executive Session. The City would prefer to see no bill at all on this subject, but if the Legislature determines a bill is absolutely necessary, Renton will work with AWC and other local governments to craft a proposal with important conditions. • Regulation of abandoned shopping carts: Renton, the City of Auburn, and the Northwest Grocers are working together on a collaborative bill on this issue —and hopefully one that is agreed-upon before the 2008 Session. The idea is to allow jurisdictions to have regulatory ordinances dealing with abandoned shopping carts, but to provide a "safe harbor" to grocery and retail outlets that utilize recognized and certified cart-retrieval services. • Protecting bidding laws and contracting authority: It is rare for a session in Olympia to go by without some group putting a bill in front of the Legislature to add new requirements to bidding, or to make it more difficult to reject all bids, or to change notice provisions and claim rules for contractors. Renton will join other local governments in working to protect local government authority in contracting and bidding laws in 2008. Parks and Recreation • Increased flexibility in use of "REET" and Conservation Futures funds: The Washington Recreation and Parks Association (WRPA)will bring forth 2008 legislation to , authorize a local-option, discretionary tool for cities and counties on their first-and second- quarter percent Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues. The tool would allow local governments, at their discretion, to use up to 25 percent of the REET revenues for parks maintenance and operations needs. Additionally, the WRPA will promote legislation to increase conservation futures taxing authority for counties. Renton supports the REET funding options and conservation futures authority planks of the WRPA agenda. • Authority to trap moles and rodents on public property: Renton will support 2008 legislation to provide cities and counties with explicit authority to trap rodents such as gophers and moles that can cause major damage to public property if left unchecked. Telecommunications • Oppose statewide franchise fee authority: In 2007, Qwest approached the Legislature, seeking legislative enactment of a statewide franchising structure for cable and video services. Had the legislation succeeded, it would have pre-empted local franchising authority that guides cable service in Renton and other local markets around the state. Qwest and possibly others will be back with this legislative proposal in 2008, and may also seek to put in place a uniform/statewide utility tax system to pay for it. Renton will join AWC in strongly opposing this attack on local control, and the attempt to undermine local utility tax authority. 5 Transportation/Transit • Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) funding distribution formulas: In recent years, with changes to the CTR program, there have also been changes to the way in which CTR funds have been distributed among counties. Renton joins other jurisdictions in King County in expressing strong concerns with those changes and will join an effort to re-calibrate the CTR funding distribution models in a way that more fairly recognizes the contribution that King County jurisdictions make to vanpool, carpool, and transit usage. • Freeway signage requirements for regional shopping destinations: Renton is exploring whether a change in state law may be needed to allow for 1-405 signage promoting The Landing as a regional shopping destination center. The City is currently in discussions with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) regarding the current state law and criteria and then will make a determination as to whether it needs to pursue any changes in law. Water Resources • Oppose new burdens on water-sewer district assumptions: Renton will work with the AWC and other cities to preserve current statute on city assumptions of water-sewer districts and oppose legislation that restricts the City's ability to operate its water-sewer system when water-sewer districts are within its boundaries. • Potential reworking of 2003 Municipal Water Law: With a constitutional lawsuit pending against the 2003 Municipal Water Law, it is possible that certain lawmakers may seek a legislative fix to this issue in 2008. Renton would strongly oppose any modification to the Now law in terms of perfecting water rights and flexible "place of use" for delivering water. These are key pillars within the law for Renton. 6 4 City of Renton 2008 Legislative Agenda —Track/Monitor List Criminal Justice/Courts/Jails/Law Enforcement • Changing the threshold as to which property crimes constitute a misdemeanor vs. a felony: Renton will track legislative initiatives that would result in more property crimes being classified as misdemeanors— by raising the dollar threshold for what is considered a misdemeanor vs. a felony. • ID Theft: The Attorney General likely will request 2008 legislation requiring that with all claims of identity theft, whether or not they allegedly occurred inside the jurisdictional boundaries, a police report must be taken. Renton will track this issue. • Gang Task Force: An interim Task Force is looking at what additional tools can be provided to local communities to address growing gang membership and violence. Renton supports providing additional tools to local communities to deal with gang issues, including tools that help to address and eradicate graffiti. • Increased use of ignition interlock devices in DUI sentencing: The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) have been asked to address the expansion of the use of ignition interlocks as a sentencing measure in DUI cases. Renton has conveyed some detail-level concerns with draft bill language on this subject, but, assuming those are worked out, does not object to the policy of using ignition interlocks as a tool to keep DUI offenders from inappropriately getting behind the wheel of a car. • Interrogating juveniles in criminal investigations: Renton does not expect this issue to arise in 2008. However, if it does, and lawmakers attempt to require that a parent be present at all criminal interrogations involving a juvenile, the City would join other law enforcement interests in opposing it. Law enforcement groups have agreed that notifying a parent makes good sense, but requiring an investigation to go on hold unless they are present is another matter. • Drug seizure proceeds: Renton does not expect this issue to arise in 2008. If it does, the City will join law enforcement interests in opposing any 2008 legislative initiative that seeks to redirect the proceeds from drug seizures at the local level and instead target those monies to drug treatment at the state level. Such legislative initiatives have failed in past sessions and represent an infringement on local authority. • Municipal Courts — 1) services flexibility— "Community Courts"; 2) subject matter: On the "Community Courts"front, cities that band together to form multi-jurisdiction Municipal Courts won a recent case with a State Supreme Court decision that upheld the validity of their arrangements. Renton supports efforts by AWC and other cities to preserve these arrangements and head off any attempts in Olympia to undermine them. The City also joins AWC in being open to technical ways of clarifying state statute related to these "community court" arrangements. On the issue of"subject matter," there have been bills in the Legislature the last few sessions that would require Municipal Courts to take on Anti- Harassment Order and Domestic Violence Protection Order cases. Ned 7 Fiscal Issues • Six-year levy lid lift authority for cities, counties, and special districts: Some lawmakers are concerned that in enacting Engrossed Senate Bill 5498 last session, the Legislature inadvertently may have given local governments permanent levy lid-lift authority vs. just six years. Renton will track this issue to help ensure the fundamental lid-lift authority is left intact. GMA/Housing/Annexation/Land Use and Permitting • Annexation statutes: A number of cities, in tandem with the AWC, may seek to make technical changes to state statute on annexation. Additionally, some cities may also seek to amend the 2006 law (SSB 6686) that established a state sales tax credit for large-scale annexations (10,000 people or more) in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. Renton is not convinced that statutory changes are necessary to 6686. The City will track and possibly support other annexation proposals, such as the idea of restoring the ability of Boundary Review Boards (BRBs) to expand the size of annexation areas—which has been beneficial for Renton in the past. • "Best Available Science" (BAS): During recent sessions of the Legislature, some cities and counties have brought forth legislation that would provide local governments with more flexibility to determine what is Best Available Science (BAS)within their critical area plans under the GMA. Renton will track legislative proposals that give local governments more flexibility in making BAS determinations under the Growth Management Act (GMA). • Eminent domain/condemnation: Renton will track potential legislative activity in this issue l'r"'' area in 2008. The Attorney General formed a Task Force to review eminent domain laws in Washington State. In 2007, the Legislature addressed concerns about lack of notice in condemnation proceedings by requiring advance newspaper publication and other public- notice requirements. • Explicit authority to condition location of mini-casino gambling establishments through zoning controls: The City supports the efforts by AWC and individual cities to explicitly confirm local zoning authority over the location of mini-casino establishments. Human and Social Services • Transitional housing: Renton is hearing that King County, and perhaps others, may pursue additional funding in 2008 for transitional housing needs. Renton will track this issue. Transportation • "Concurrency" issues: The 2008 Legislature may look at reconfiguring how jurisdictions measure transportation "concurrency," which involves the capacity of a given roadway or interchange to continue to function given increasing development. Renton will track this issue. 8 Water Resources • Use of reclaimed water: It is possible the 2008 Legislature will field requests for additional legislation dealing with the use of reclaimed water. If so, Renton will work with other city water and sewer utilities to ensure that any such legislation preserves local flexibility and choice, and does not mandate the use of reclaimed water whether or not an affordable market for it exists. • Cost recovery for residential fire-suppression sprinkler systems: During the 2006 Session, Renton expressed concerns with proposed legislation that would have precluded municipal utilities from recovering the costs they incur to extend water transmission facilities, or expand pipes, to serve residential fire-suppression sprinkler systems. Renton will again resist this type of legislation if it emerges in 2008. 9 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: December 3, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. Fire Department Staff Contact I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/ Agenda Status Emergency Services Administrator Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Change of name for the Renton Fire Department to Ordinance X Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Ordinance Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $0.00 Transfer/Amendment $0.00 Amount Budgeted $0.00 Revenue Generated $0.00 Total Project Budget $0.00 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The name "Renton Fire Department" is a misnomer in that this City's Fire Department provides more in the way of emergency medical services than it does fire response or suppression. Therefore, in order that the department is named for what it truly does, the name should be changed to Fire and Emergency Services Department. Additionally, the department administrator's current title was recently changed to Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator in order to better align with the titles of other City department administrators. Finally, the department is organized into four sections: the Office of the Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Response Operations Section, Safety & Support Services Section, and Community Risk Reduction Section. This organizational structure needs to be reflected in the City Code. All of these items can be changed by adopting an ordinance that revises Title III, Chapter 5 of the City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the ordinance revising Title III, Chapter 5 of the City Code authorizing the name change from the Renton Fire Department to the Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department, reflecting the change of the department administrator's title from Fire Chief to Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, and establishing and defining the four Sections of the department's organizational structure; and do so as a part of the adoption of the 2008 City budget. `SY O‘e FIRE DEPARTMENT Nior c4) ' ' MEMORANDUM DATE: December 3, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the City Council VIA: l Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator SUBJECT: Change of Department Name, Department Administrator's Title and Department's Organizational Structure ISSUE: Should the City Council authorize the adoption of an ordinance that revises Title III, Chapter 5 of the City Code to change the name of the Fire Department and the organizational structure of the Fire Department? BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The name "Fire Department" is a misnomer in that the department performs a multitude of services in addition to fire suppression. The majority of incidents to which the department responds are emergency medical in nature. The name "Fire Department," while traditional, does not accurately portray the work and services of the department. A more accurate name for the department is "Fire & Emergency Services Department." The department administrator's current title is "Fire Chief." Again, as with the name of the department, this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, as stated above, the department itself performs a multitude of services in addition to fire suppression. Second. the title "Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator" is more in line with the titles of other City department administrators. This change has already occurred relative to the official job description but needs to be integrated into the structure of the organization. The department is organized into four distinct sections: Office of the Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Response Operations Section, Safety & Support Services Section and Community Risk Reduction Section. The four sections should be officially established and defined in the City Code. 'tre • Toni Nelson,Council President Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 November 19,2007 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance to revise Title III, Chapter 5 of the City Code, which would change the name of the Fire Department to the "Fire & Emergency Services Department," would change references to the department administrator's title from Fire Chief to "Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator" and would establish and define the four Sections of the department. This ordinance would become effective upon the adoption of the 2008 City budget. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON *so, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5, FIRE DEPARTMENT, OF TITLE III, "DEPARTMENTS," OF ORDINANCE 4260, ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON" CHANGING '1'HL+ DUTIES OF THE FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR AND TO CHANGE TH RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENT DIVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Chapter 5 of Title III, Departments, shall be amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 5 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT SECTION: 3-5-1: Establishment of Department 3-5-2: Appointment of Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator I'll' 3-5-3: Duties of Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator 3-5-4: Qualifications of Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator 3-5-5: Sections Within the Fire and Emergency Services Department 3-5-1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT: There is hereby created and established a Fire and Emergency Services Department. 3-5-2 APPOINTMENT OF FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR: The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council. The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator shall be excluded from the classified civil service system as permitted by RCW 41.08.050. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3-5-3 DUTIES OF FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR: The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator shall be responsible for any duties associated with the city's overall prevention, preparedness, response to, recovery from or mitigation activities associated with emergencies and/or disasters including but not limited to: A. Performing duties in city ordinance or policies assigned to the Fire Chief, Chief of the Fire Department or City Emergency Manager. B. Planning, organizing, coordinating and directing the Department's services and functions including community risk reduction, response operations, member safety and support services. C. Providing relevant information to the Mayor and City Council. D. Supervising and evaluating the performance of assigned personnel. E. Utilizing the Administrator's authority to make rules and issue orders for the proper functioning of the Department, consistent with laws, Council policies and the rules of the Civil Service Commission. 3-5-4 QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR: The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator must possess those qualifications deemed necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City's Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator job classification. 3-5-5 SECTIONS WITHIN THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT A. Office of the Fire Chief: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1. The Office of the Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator shall be responsible for err► the strategic vision and direction of the department as well as the safety and public information programs. 2. Emergency Management Division: The Emergency Management Division shall be responsible for city wide emergency mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery programming. B. Response Operations Section: The Response Operations Section shall be primarily responsible for responding to incidents, emergencies and disaster calls for service to minimize the loss of life, protect property and the environment and bring emergencies to resolution in the most expedient manner possible. Individual shifts (and battalions) shall be the equivalent of Divisions in other sections of the department. C. Safety/Support Services Section: The Safety/Support Services Section shall be responsible for the protection of an internal working environment that supports the mission of the department itself. 1. Safety/Training Division: The Safety/Training Division shall be responsible for the training and development of members of the department with the intent of increasing their level of competence, thereby providing increased safety for members and those served by the department. 3 tow ORDINANCE NO. 2. Administration Division: The Administration Division shall be responsible for management of fiscal, human resource, purchasing and information technology programs in support of the mission of the department. 3. Logistics Division: The Logistics Division is responsible for the management of department assets including buildings, vehicles, and other pieces of equipment as well as coordination with other departments and organizations that provide similar services city wide. D. Community Risk Reduction Section: 1. Hazard Mitigation Division: The Hazard Mitigation Division shall be responsible for programs and activities that address hazards that cannot be prevented in the city, but require management to minimize the potential of harm to residents; including code development and enforcement as well as cause and origin investigation. 2. Technical Services Division: The Technical Services Division shall be responsible for programs and activities intended to minimize the occurrence of new hazards in the city including community relations and education, plans review and coordination of special events and operations from an emergency services perspective. SECTION H. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 4 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. loime Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ORD:13 82:09/17/07:ch ,fir,. 5 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al#: t Submitting Data: For Agenda of: December 3, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. Human Resources/Risk Management Staff Contact Mike Webby Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Position Reclassifications effective January 2008. Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper and Fiscal Costs Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $91,200 additional cost Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Current Title Current New Budget Grade Grade Change 2008 Probation Clerk a08 a 1 0 $ 2,376 Admin. Secretary II/Risk Mgmt Assist. nil m17 $ 2,964 Employee Benefits Analyst m20 m22 $ 3,384 Admin. Secretary I/Econ. Develop. Assist. nll n14 $ 4,092 Admin. Secretary II/Ex. (4 incumbents) nil n14 $11,976 Maintenance Custodian a07 all $ 2,448 Human Services Manager m28 m29 $ 2,064 Senior Center Coordinator m20 m23 $ 5,124 Renton Community Center Coordinator m20 m23 $ 5,124 Park Maintenance Manager m28 m32 $ 4,128 Civil Engineer III (12 incumbents) a27 a28 $22,032 Civil Engineer II (4 incumbents) a23 a25 $13,980 Lift Station Technician (2 incumbents) al4 al5 $ 2,832 Water Meter Reader (3 incumbents) A05 A07 $ 6,840 Crime Analyst pn61 pn54 $ 1,836 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve salary adjustments for current employees. Funds to implement this recommendation are available within the 2008 budget, which will cover the additional costs of these reclassifications 4411001,, and salary adjustments in 2008. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh ti`SY O HUMAN RESOURCES & RISK + ;; ® MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT -Nryo� MEMORANDUM DATE: November 28, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathyj- Keolker, Mayor FROM: Michael Webby, HR & RM Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Michael Webby, HR & RM Administrator SUBJECT: 2008 Reclassification Adjustments BACKGROUND The purpose of this document is to provide an executive summary of the review process of certain positions. If approved, the recommended salary adjustments contained in this report would be effective on January 1, 2008. The salary analysis affects positions in the AJLS, Community Services; Economic Development Neighborhood & Strategic *re Planning, Finance & Information Services, Fire, Human Resources &Risk Management, Planning/Building/Public Works; and Police Departments. We processed forty reviews during this period. We are recommending fifteen for salary adjustment effective for January 2008. The result of this review process, if approved, will provide salary adjustments for thirty- four employees. Salary adjustments are based upon the labor market and internal equity. The cost of implementation during FY 2008 is approximately$91,200, excluding salary related benefits. Funds have been included in the 2008 budget to implement these reclassifications if approved. Recommendation by Department ADMINISTRATIVE/JUDICIAL & LEGAL SERVICES Probation Clerk(Local 2170, grade a08): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade a10 effective January 1, 2008 `+irrr is\files\reclass\council\2008 issue paper re_class.doc Michael Webby Page 2 of 6 11/28/2007 Judicial Specialist,Judicial Specialist/Trainer and Lead Judicial Specialist (Local 2170, grades a08, al0 and a15 respectively): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey supports the salaries of these positions remain at grade a08, al 0 and al5 respectively. Court Services Director (Non-Represented, grade m30): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey supports the salary of the position remain at grade m30. FINANCE & INFORMATION SERVICES Administrative Secretary II (Non-Represented, grade n11): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade n14 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Administrative Assistant. HUMAN RESOURCES & RISK MANAGEMENT Administrative Secretary II/Risk Management Assistant(Non-Represented, grade n11): The duties and responsibilities have changed significantly. The incumbent performs professional-level duties in order to develop, implement, and coordinate the City's risk management programs to control and minimize the City's liability and loss exposure. We recommend the position be increased to grade m17 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Risk Management Analyst. NtaiS Employee Benefits Analyst (Non-Represented, grade n20): The duties and responsibilities have changed significantly. The position is responsible for complex comprehensive program benefit administration. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon internal equity. We recommend the position be increased to grade m22 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Sr. Employee Benefits Analyst. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD & STRATEGIC PLANNING Administrative Secretary II/Economic Assistant(Non-Represented, grade n11): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade n14 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Administrative Assistant. COMMUNITY SERVICES Administrative Secretary II (Non-Represented, grade n11): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade n14 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Administrative Assistant. is\files\reclass\council\2008 issue paper re_class.doc Michael Webby Page 3 of 6 11/28/2007 Maintenance Custodian (Local 2170, grade a07): The duties and responsibilities have fir• changed significantly. The position is responsible for providing work direction and training. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon internal equity. We recommend the position be increased to grade all effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Lead Maintenance Custodian. Human Services Manager (Non-Represented, grade m28): The duties and responsibilities have changed significantly. The incumbent performs emergency response team responsibilities. We recommend the position be increased to grade m29 effective January 1, 2008. Sr. Center Coordinator (Non-Represented, grade m20): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis and internal equity. We recommend the position be changed to grade m23 effective January 1, 2008. Renton Community Center Coordinator: (Non-Represented, grade m20): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis and internal equity. We recommend the position be changed to grade m23 effective January 1, 2008. Recreation Supervisor (Non-Represented, grade m25): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based '41isr,, upon internal equity. We recommend the position be changed to grade m28 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Recreation Manager. Office Assistant III (Recreation) (Local 2170, grade a05): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Park Maintenance Manager (Non-Represented, grade m28): The duties and responsibilities have changed significantly. The incumbent performs all responsibilities for the City's Urban Forestry program. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis and internal equity. We recommend the position be increased to grade m32 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Park Maintenance Manger/City Forester. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS Administrative Secretary II (Non-Represented, grade nl 1): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade n14 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Administrative Assistant. Civil Engineer I (Local 2170, grade a19): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon is\files\reclass\council\2008 issue paper re_class.doc Michael Webby Page 4 of 6 11/28/2007 labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade a21 effective January 1, 2008. Civil Engineer II (Local 2170, grade a23): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade a25 effective January 1, 2008. Civil Engineer III (Local 2170, grade a27): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade a28 effective January 1, 2008. Engineering Specialist I (Local 2170, grade a13): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Engineering Specialist II (Local 2170, grade a19): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Engineering Specialist III (Local 2170, grade a23): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Engineering Specialist III (Local 2170, grade a23): The incumbent is performing duties of a Property Services Technician. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted; however a title change to Property Services Technician is recommended. Engineering Specialist III (Local 2170, grade a23): The incumbent is performing duties of a Mapping Technician. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted, however a title change to Mapping Technician is recommended. Secretary II (Transportation) (Local 2170, grade a07): The position does not perform additional duties to support premium pay, nor have the duties and responsibilities changed. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Lift Station Technician (Local 2170, grade al4): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates the salary of this position be adjusted to grade a15 effective January 1, 2008. Maintenance Buyer(Local 2170, grade al7): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Purchasing Assistant (Local 2170, grade a08): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. is\files\reclass\council\2008 issue paper re_class.doc Michael Webby Page 5 of 6 11/28/2007 "fire Office Assistant III (Shops) (Local 2170, grade a05): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Water Meter Reader (Local 2170, grade a05): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade a07 effective January 1, 2008. Maintenance Services Worker I, II & III (Local 2170, grade a04, a08 and a12 respectively): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Street Maintenance Supervisor (Local 2170, grade a23): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Water Maintenance Supervisor(Local 2170, grade a21): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. ;o, Water Utility Maintenance Supervisor (Local 2170, grade a21): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Waste Water Maintenance Supervisor (Local 2170, grade a23): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Transportation Maintenance Supervisor (Local 2170, grade m27): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Lead Construction Inspector (Local 2170, grade a24): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. Construction Inspector II (Local 2170, grade a21): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our salary survey indicates a salary adjustment is not warranted. FIRE is\files\reclass\council\2008 issue paper re_class.doc Michael Webby Page 6 of 6 11/28/2007 Administrative Secretary II (Non-Represented, grade n11): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be increased to grade n14 effective January 1, 2008 and title changed to Administrative Assistant. POLICE Police Crime Analyst(Police Guild, grade pn61): The duties and responsibilities have not changed significantly. Our recommendation to reclassify this position is based upon labor market analysis. We recommend the position be changed to grade pn54 effective January 1,2008. is\files\reclass\council\2008 issue paper re_class.doc JANUARY 2008 GRAND TOTAL RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS DEPARTMENT TOTALS 2008 Base Salary Totals AJLS $ 2,376.00 FINANCE/INFORMATION SERVICES $ - HUMAN RESOURCES&RISK MANAGEMENT $ 6,348.00 EDNSP $ 4,092.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES $ 22,980.00 PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS $ 49,776.00 FIRE $ 3,792.00 POLICE $ 1,836.00 TOTALS $ 91,200.00 2008 Reclass January.xls GR_TOTALS Page 1 11/28/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS AJLS DEPARTMENT 2008 Additional EMPLOYEE CURRENT POSITION Jan-Dec 08 Jan-Dec 08 Cost NOTES NEW POSITION&GRADE Before Re-class After Re-Class Susan Hanscom Probation Clerk $ 46,704.00 $ 49,080.00 $ 2,376.00 Probation Clerk grade a10 D Step Sue Schirman Lead Judicial Specialist $ 58,320.00 $ 58,320.00 $ - No Change Brenda Allred Lead Judicial Specialist $ 58,320.00 $ 58,320.00 $ - No Change Kristi Schorn Judicial Specialist/Trainer $ 51,564.00 $ 51,564.00 $ - No Change Theresa Schmierer Judicial Specialist $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Bobbie Coffin Parker Judicial Specialist $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Cheryl Cruz Judicial Specialist $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Dawn Hendrickson Judicial Specialist $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Vicotria Nelson Judicial Specialist $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Jennifer Smith Judicial Specialist $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Janelle Shook Judicial Specialist $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Joe McGuire Court Services Director $ 85,620.00 $ 85,620.00 $ - No Change AJLS GRAND TOTAL $ 644,088.00 $ 646,464.00 $ 2,376.00 • 2008 Reclass January.xls AJLS Page 2 9/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS FINANCE INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2008 Additional EMPLOYEE CURRENT POSITION Jan-Dec 08 Jan-Dec 08 Cost NOTES NEW POSITION&GRADE Before Re-class After Re-Class Vacant Administrative Secretary II/Ex $ 52,032.00_ $ 52,032.00 $ - Administrative Assistant gr.n14 FINANCE GRAND TOTAL $ 52,032.00 $ 52,032.00 $ - 2008 Reclass January.xls Finance Page 3 11/7/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS HUMAN RESOURCES RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT I 2008 Additional EMPLOYEE CURRENT POSITION Jan-Dec 08 Jan-Dec 08 Cost NOTES NEW POSITION&GRADE Before Re-class After Re-Class Pauletta Sulky Admin. Sec II/Risk Mgmt Assist $ 53,304.00 $ 56,268.00 $ 2,964.00 Risk Mgmt Analyst gr. m17 Terri Shuhart Employee Benefit Analyst $ 66,888.00 $ 70,272.00 $ 3,384.00 Sr.Employee Benefits Analyst gr.m22 HR&RM GRAND TOTAL $ 120,192.00 $ 126,540.00 $ 6,348.00 2008 Recs January.xls HR&RM Pa " X2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS EDNSP DEPARTMENT 2008 Additional EMPLOYEE CURRENT POSITION Jan-Dec 08 Jan-Dec 08 Cost NOTES NEW POSITION&GRADE Before Re-class After Re-Class Debra Mikolaizik Admin Sec II/Economic Dev.Assist $ 53,304.00 $ 57,396.00 $ 4,092.00 Administrative Assistant gr. n14 EDNSP GRAND TOTAL $ 53,304.00 $ 57,396.00 $ 4,092.00 2008 Reclass January.xls EDNSP Page 5 11/7/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2008 Additional EMPLOYEE CURRENT POSITION Jan-Dec 08 Jan-Dec 08 Cost NOTES NEW POSITION&GRADE Before Re-class After Re-Class Sandra Pilat Adminstrative Secretary II/Ex $ 53,304.00 $ 57,396.00 $ 4,092.00 Administrative Assistant gr. n14 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $ 53,304.00 $ 57,396.00 $ 4,092.00 Mark Baldridge Maintenance Custodian $ 47,820.00 $ 50,268.00 $ 2,448.00 Change to Lead Maintenance Custodian gr.al l TOTAL FACILITIES $ 47,820.00 $ 50,268.00 $ 2,448.00 TOTAL GOLF COURSE $ - $ - $ - Karen Bergsvik Human Services Manager $ 81,492.00 $ 83,556.00 $ 2,064.00 Grade m29 TOTAL HUMAN SERVICES $ 81,492.00 $ 83,556.00 $ 2,064.00 Shawn Daly Senior Center Coordinator $ 66,888.00 $ 72,012.00 $ 5,124.00 Grade m23 Shirley Anderson Renton Community Ctr Coord $ 66,888.00 $ 72,012.00 $ 5,124.00 Grade m23 Ryan Spencer Office Assistant Ill $ 45,540.00 $ 45,540.00 $ - No Change TOTAL RECREATION TOTAL RECREATION $ 179,316.00 $ 189,564.00 $ 10,248.00 TOTAL LIBRARY $ - $ - $ - Terry Flatley Park Maintenance Manager $ 81,492.00 $ 85,620.00 $ 4,128.00 Part Maint Mgr/City Forester grade m32 TOTAL PARKS $ 81,492.00 $ 720.00 $ 4,128.00 2008 Ret anuary.xis cmty_svcs Pt;. .1/7/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES $ 443,424.00 $ 466,404.00 $ 22,980.00 2008 Reclass January.xls cmty_svcs Page 7 11/7/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2008 Additional EMPLOYEE CURRENT POSITION Jan-Dec 08 Jan-Dec 08 Cost NOTES NEW POSITION&GRADE Before Re-class After Re-Class Tom Malphrus Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 Daniel Carey Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 Steve Lee Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 _Grade a28 Allen Quynn Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 Michael Benoit Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 John Hobson Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 Carolyn Boatsman Civil Engineer II $ 71,004.00 $ 74,628.00 $ 3,624.00 Grade a25 Gary Fink Civil Engineer II $ 61,248.00 $ 64,356.00 $ 3,108.00 Grade a25 Andrew Weygandt Engineering Specialist III $ 65,716.00 $ 65,716.00 $ - No Change Donna Visneski Engineering Specialist III $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - No Change Karen McFarland Engineering Specialist III $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - Property Services Technician_No Salary Change-Title Change Sonja Fesser Engineering Specialist III $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - Maping Technician No Salary Change-Title Change Don Ellis Engineering Specialist III $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - No Change Laszlo Csuha Engineering Specialist II $ 64,356.00 $ 64,356.00 $ - No Change Gary DelRosario Engineering Specialist II $ 64,356.00 $ 64,356.00 $ - _ No Change UTILITIES GRAND TOTAL $ 1,081,144.00 $ 1,099,324.00 $ 18,180.00 Oscar Cantu Lift Station Technician $ 56,904.00 $ 58,320.00 $ 1,416.00 Grade a15 Malcom Thomson Lift Station Technician $ 56,904.00 $ 58,320.00 _$ 1,416.00 Grade a15 William Walker Maintenance Buyer _$ 61,248.00 $ 61,248.00 $ - No Change Vanessa Poorman Purchasing Assistant $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Sherry Lovgren Office Assistant III $ 45,540.00 $ 45,540.00 $ - _No Change Douglas Allen Water Meter Reader $ 45,540.00 $ 47,820.00 $ 2,280.00 Grade a07 Sandra Zier Water Meter Reader $ 45,540.00 $ 47,820.00 $ 2,280.00 Grade a07 Kristin Francavilla Water Meter Reader $ 45,540.00 $ 47,820.00 $ 2,280.00 Grade a07 Mark Combs Maintenance Services Worker II $ 40,260.00 $ 40,260.00 $ - No Change Earl Drawson Maintenance Services Worker II $ 40,260.00 $ 40,260.00 $ - No Change Christopher Griffith Maintenance Services Worker II $ 40,260.00 $ 40,260.00 $ - No Change Joseph Ferrer Maintenance Services Worker II $ 42,300.00 $ 42,300.00 $ - No Change Jason Burkey Maintenance Services Worker II $ 44,460.00 $ 44,460.00 $ - No Change 2008 Reclass January.xls pbpw Page 8 "'8/2007 ( ( ( . JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Jason Churchill Maintenance Services Worker II $ 44,460.00 $ 44,460.00 $ - No Change Craig Sawyer Maintenance Services Worker II $ 44,460.00 $ 44,460.00 $ - No Change Edward Washington Jr. Maintenance Services Worker II $ 44,460.00 $ 44,460.00 $ - No Change Frederico Enriquez Jr. Maintenance Services Worker II $ 49,080.00 $ 49,080.00 $ - No Change Kimberlee Sawyer Maintenance Services Worker III $ 44,460.00 $ 44,460.00 $ - No Change Tyler Schwartzenberger Maintenance Services Worker III $ 44,460.00 $ 44,460.00_ $ - No Change Joshua O'Neill Maintenance Services Worker III $ 51,564.00_ $ 51,564.00_ $ - No Change Patrick Pierson Maintenance Services Worker/III _$ 51,564.00 $ 51,564.00_ $ - No Change Brian Stark Maintenance Services Worker III $ 51,564.00 $ 51,564.00 $ - No Change Sean Campbell Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change Ronald Eckert Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00_ $ - No Change Patrick Flaherty Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change Kevin Garratt Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change Jayson Grant Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00_$ - No Change Kevin Hiatt Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change John Kalmbach Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00_$ - No Change Christopher Krysiak Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00_ $ - No Change Marney Larsen Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00_$ - No Change Timothy Michaud Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change Gregg Seegmiller Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change Rocy Sittner Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 T$ - No Change Gary Smith Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change John Wallace Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change Lee Walmsley Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change Christopher Wood Maintenance Services Worker III $ 54,132.00 $ 54,132.00 $ - No Change Patrick Zellner Street Maintenance Supervisor $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - No Change George Stahl Water Maintenance Supervisor $ 67,620.00_ $ 67,620.00 $ - No Change Dan Scottie Water Utilities Maintenance Supervisor $ 67,620.00 $ 67,620.00 $ - No Change Vacant Waste Water Maintenance Supervisor $ - $ - $ - No Change MAINTENANCE GRAND TOT) $ 2,112,264.00 $ 2,121,936.00 $ 9,672.00 Robert Cavanaugh Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 Kenneth Johnson Civil Engineer III (Part Time.5) $ 39,204.00 $ 40,158.00 $ 954.00 Grade a28 James Wilhoit Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 Derek Akesson Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00 $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 2008 Reclass January.xls pbpw Page 9 11/28/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Keith Wooley Civil Engineer III $ 78,408.00_ $ 80,316.00 $ 1,908.00 Grade a28 Bob Mahn Civil Engineer III (Part Time.5) $ 39,204.00 $ 41,202.00 $ 1,998.00_ Grade a28 John Hasty Civil Engineer II $ 71,004.00_ $ 74,628.00 $ 3,624.00 Grade a25 Ron Mar Engineering Specialist III $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - No Change Benigno(Jun)Aesquivel Engineering Specialist III $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - No Change Ryan Plut Engineering Specialist III $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - No Change David Whitmarsh Transportation Maintenance Supervisor $ 79,500.00 $ 79,500.00 $ - No Change Jennifer Jorgenson Secretary II $ 47,820.00 $ 47,820.00 $ - No Change TRANSPORTATION GRAND TOTAL $ 803,376.00 $ 817,584.00 $ 14,208.00 Stephen Pinkham Lead Construction Inspector $ 72,828.00 $ 72,828.00 $ - No Change Mark Wetherbee Construction Inspector II $ 67,620.00 $ 67,620.00 $ - No Change Tom Main Construction Inspector II $ 67,620.00 $ 67,620.00_ $ - No Change Ron McPhee Construction Inspector II $ 67,620.00 $ 67,620.00 $ - No Change Dan Thompson Construction Inspector II $ 67,620.00 $ 67,620.00 $ - No Change Pat Miller Construction Inspector II $ 67,620.00 $ 67,620.00 $ - No Change Patrick DeCaro Construction Inspector II $ 62,802.00 $ 62,802.00 $ - No Change Richard Moreno Civil Engineer II $ 71,004.00 $ 74,628.00 $ 3,624.00 Grade a25 Michael Dotson Eingineering Specialist III $ 66,804.00 $ 66,804.00 $ - _ _No Change Arneta Henninger Eingineering Specialist III $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - No Change Janet Illian Eingineering Specialist II $ 71,004.00 $ 71,004.00 $ - No Change DEVELOPMENT GRAND TOTAL $ 753,546.00 $ 757,170.00 $ 3,624.00 Linda Moschetti Administrative Secretary II/Ex $ 53,304.00 $ 57,396,00 $ 4,092.00 Administrative Assistant gr.n14 ADMINISTRATION GRAND T( $ 53,304.00 $ 57,396.00 $ 4,092.00 PLAN/BLDGIPBLC WORKS GRAND TOTAL $ 4,803,634.00 $ 4,853,410.00 $ 49,776.00 2008 Reclass January.xls pbpw Pay 10 "28/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS FIRE DEPARTMENT 2008 Additional EMPLOYEE CURRENT POSITION Jan-Dec 08 Jan-Dec 08 Costs NOTES NEW POSITION&GRADE Before Re-class After Re-Class Joan Montegary Adminstrative Secretary II/Ex $ 48,240.00 $ 52,032.00 $ 3,792.00 Administrative Assistant gr.n14 Fire Administration Total $ 48,240.00 $ 52,032.00 $ 3,792.00 FIRE GRAND TOTAL $ 48,240.00 $ 52,032.00 $ 3,792.00 2008 Reclass January.xis Fire Page 11 11/7/2007 JANUARY 2008 RECLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL COSTS POLICE DEPARTMENT 2008 Additional EMPLOYEE CURRENT POSITION Jan-Dec 08 Jan-Dec 08 Cost NOTES NEW POSITION&GRADE Before Re-class After Re-Class Sherry Smith Adminstrative Assistant $ 53,580.00 $ 53,580.00 $ - No Change Shirley Rickman Crime Analyst $ 59,748.00 $ 61,584.00 $ 1,836.00 Change to pn54 2007 TOTALS $ 113,328.00 $ 115,164.00 $ 1,836.00 POLICE GRAND TOTAL $ 113,328.00 $ 115,164.00 $ 1,836.00 2008 Reclass January.xls Police Pag ? CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL /- AI#: , r 4416•1 -AI#: .+'Submitting Data: For Agenda of: December 3, 2007 Dept/Div/Board..- Police Staff Contact Penny Bartley Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Occupational Health Services-Jail Inmate Health Care Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Copy of Contract Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept X.. Finance Dept Other H/R Risk Management X I Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... 186,958 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted 193,743 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton has contracted with Occupational Health Services (OHS) from Valley Medical Center for health services within the jail since 1995. The only change in the 2008 contract is a six percent increase in the total contract amount. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Occupational Health Services (OHS) 2008 contract for jail health services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the agreement. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh fY Ore POLICE DEPARTMENT ,e‘PANT c)" ' MEMORANDUM DATE: October 4, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: .) rKathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police STAFF CONTACT: Penny Bartley, Police Manager(XT 7565) SUBJECT: Issue Paper—Occupational Health Services Contract ISSUE: Should the City of Renton continue its contract with Occupational Health Services (OHS) from Valley Medical Center for health services within the jail? BACKGROUND: OHS has provided jail medical services since 1995. The contract provides for 44 hours of nursing services and four hours of physician assistant services within the jail. Additionally, we have 24-hour on-call services provided under the contract and a psychiatric nurse practitioner available as well. The types of services that are provided under the contract include physical examinations and screening of inmates, evaluation and treatment of chronic health conditions, communicable disease control and prevention and medication management. Inmates that need follow-up care or diagnostic services that aren't provided within the jail are transported to OHS for evaluation and are billed in accordance with Exhibit A. The only change in the 2008 contract is a six percent increase in the total contract amount. The total amount for the 2008 contract is $186,958. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The City of Renton Council concurs with the recommendation of City Administration to approve the 2007 Occupational Health Services Agreement and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the agreement. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT City of Renton Police Department Jail THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of , by and between the City of Renton (hereinafter the "City"), and Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County, a Washington municipal corporation d/b/a Occupational Health Services (hereinafter "OHS"). PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is for OHS to provide on-site health services at the City of Renton Police Department Jail (hereinafter the "Jail) an approximately fifty (50) bed unit, as well as various off-site health services for staff and inmates. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PROMISES AND MUTUAL COVENANTS HEREINAFTER CONTAINED, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Responsibilities of OHS. A. Basic Contract Price Services. OHS agrees to provide the following services for the agreed annual contract price of One Hundred Eighty Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight Dollars ($186,958.00) for 1/01/2008 to 12/31/2008. (Exhibit A) i. Routine on-site (i.e., at the Jail) services provided by a Registered Nurse Forty-four (44) hours per week, and a Physician Assistant on-site up to Four (4) hours per week (schedule to be arranged in advance by the parties). OHS has the sole right, responsibility and authority to select and provide the staff needed to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. During such scheduled visits, OHS shall provide physical examinations at the Jail for inmates, and evaluation and treatment of inmates and police staff for minor medical needs. On-site services shall include: a. The cost of prescriptions shall be billed to the Jail. b. Blood collection for inmates or as requested for law enforcement purposes. c. Office medical supplies used to provide the above services. NIS Occupational Health Services Agmt. City of Renton Police Department Jail ii. Off-Site Services: Twenty-Four (24) hour, Seven (7) days per week phone consultation service with a Registered Nurse and/or Physician Assistant. Such telephone consultations are limited to the scope of practice of a Registered Nurse or a Physician Assistant, respectively. B. Services Not Included. Services not provided in the annual price set forth above are additional services not described in Paragraph A, above, including but not limited to hospitalization, emergency transportation and emergency room visits, physician visits, or other specialty care. C. Services in Addition to Basic Contract Price. OHS agrees to make available the following services at the usual and customary price ("UCP") that OHS charges for them. The services listed in Exhibit A are NOT included in the One Hundred Eighty Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty eight Dollars ($186,958.00) for 01/01/2007 to 12/31/2007 contract price. The UCPs are subject to periodic review and adjustment: (Exhibit A) Work-related treatment of Jail staff at the Occupational Health Clinics in Renton and Auburn will be billed to L&I. Treatment for non-work related conditions will be billed to the *iimr patient with payment expected from the individual patient, or some other entity on his/her behalf (i.e., insurance). D. Professional Qualifications and Liability Insurance. Staff provided by OHS will meet all appropriate licensure requirements and will maintain professional liability insurance coverage in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) per claim. E. Indemnification/Hold Harmless. OHS shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, error or omissions of OHS in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City." 2. Responsibilities of Jail. A. Liability. The Jail assumes all responsibility for any harm to OHS staff while performing the duties specified in this Agreement, or while on-site for that purpose, Occupational Health Services Agmt. City of Renton Police Department Jail when such harm is caused by negligence on the part of the City of Renton. OHS shall be responsible for the direct medical care provided to staff and inmates pursuant to this Agreement. OHS is not required to perform or pay any charges for ancillary services. ,AirS B. Medical Records/Consent. All medical records shall be the property of OHS. The Jail is responsible for obtaining or providing the necessary medical consent for the healthcare services provided herein. C. Payment of Fees. The Jail agrees to pay a total of One Hundred Eighty Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight Dollars ($186,958.00) in Twelve (12) monthly installments of Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred, and Eighty Dollars ($15,580) for the basic contract services outlined above. The Jail further agrees to pay all charges incurred by the Jail for the ancillary services, not included in the basic annual fee, outlined above. OHS will send a detailed invoice each month, and payment shall be made within Thirty (30) days following receipt of the invoice. In the event that the Jail fails to pay any amount when due, the delinquent amount shall bear interest at the maximum rate of interest allowable by law. Non-payment for services may result in termination of this Agreement, at the discretion of OHS, upon Ten (10) days notice to the Jail. D. Indemnification/Hold Harmless. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold OHS, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, error or omissions of the City in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the OHS." 3. Mutual Responsibilities and Miscellaneous Terms: A. Term of Agreement/Termination. The term of this Agreement shall be Twelve (12) months, commencing January 1, 2007 and ending December 31 , 2007. The Agreement shall automatically renew for Twelve (12) month periods on the anniversary hereof. The parties shall discuss in good faith any price modifications on or near such anniversary date. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time, without cause, by providing the other party with at least Ninety (90) days written notice of its intentions. OHS shall be paid as provided hereunder for all services rendered and costs incurred to the date of termination. Occupational Health Services Agmt. City of Renton Police Department Jail r B. Confidentiality. Both parties agree that medical records will be handled in accordance with Chapter 70.02 RCW, and will comply with all other existing Washington State and federal confidentiality laws. C. Dispute Resolution. Should any dispute or disagreement arise over the terms of this Agreement or from the performance thereof, both parties agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration, in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. D. Attorney's Fees. If legal proceedings are instituted by either party in connection with this Agreement, the party not prevailing agrees to pay the costs and expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees of the prevailing party. E. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any right or obligation arising thereunder may be assigned or delegated by either party without the written consent of the other, provided that health services required of OHS hereunder may be provided by OHS contract providers. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to imply a joint venture, principal, agent, or employer-employee relationship between the Jail and OHS. Now F. Laws of the State. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. G. Primary Contacts. For the purposes of administering this Agreement, the primary OHS contact person is Pat Vincent, Clinic Manager, or her successor. The primary contact at the Jail is Penny Bartley, Police Manager. lorry Occupational Health Services Agmt. City of Renton Police Department Jail :ate 1 EXHIBIT A FEE SCHEDULE BASIC PROGRAM COMPONENTS FEE Clinical Staff and Services Registered/Licensed Nurse&Physician Assistant January 1,2008-December 31, 2008 Malpractice Insurance $186,958 Trained clinicians for back-up/coverage Medical Director Oversight On-site services 48 hours/week Injury and illness treatment services 14-day Health Appraisal Exam services(see lab fees below) Administration of vaccinations&TB tests Basic dental services, i.e. tooth blocking&pain relief Triage System Medication Administration 24 hour Telephone Consultation Services Included in annual rate Access to clinical staff 24 hours/day, 7 days/week Telephone Consultation Guidelines Policies/Procedures &Clinical Guidelines Included in annual rate Operational Policies &Procedures Clinical Protocols, Practice Parameters, &Triage Guidelines Dental Services Usual and customary rates Appointment Coordination Included in annual rate Ongoing Medical Records Management Included in annual rate Initial Photocopying of Records One time fee at usual and customary *AS rates Insurance Billing Included in annual rate Program Set-Up,Management&Medical Oversight Included in annual rate Program Set-up Recruiting. Hiring, Credentialing Staff Training Scheduling Medical Records System Operational Maintenance Access to Medical Director and Clinic Director Regular business hours Quarterly Meeting Attendance Ongoing Personnel Management Problem-Solving Identifying Service Gaps Medical Oversight Access to Medical Oversight 24 hours/day, 7 days/week Quarterly Meeting Attendance Quality Assurance Quality Improvement Scope of Practice Monitoring Referral Monitoring CONTRACT FOR SERVICES—Sep 2007 CITY OF RENTON/VMC-OHS EXHIBIT A ADDITIONAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS I FEE Supplies&Medication Stocking No additional charge for inventory monitoring. Actual goods billed at OHS' cost. Delivery of Medication Daily Delivery of Prescription Medication(Monday-Friday) No additional charge Weekend and Emergency Deliveries Arranged at a negotiated rate Occupational and Employee Health Services On-the-Job Injury Triage System No additional charge On-site Employee Health Services To be priced at competitive rates but Flu Shots provided on-site for convenience TB Skin Test Hepatitis B, Series of Three Injections(includes vaccine) Hepatitis B, Infection only Hepatitis B Titer Hepatitis B Vaccine-Booster Drug Screen, Collection and Lab Processing Drug Screen, Collection Only Medical Review Officer Services Breath.Alcohol Test Breath Alcohol Test Confirmation O TIONAL SERVICESJ FEE Transportation No additional charge for coordination responsibilities Services Not in Jail Health Service Guidelines On-site Physician Services $150/hour X-Ray Usual and customary rates Now Urgent Care Services(available Monday-Friday,6:OOam-6:OOpm, OHS fee schedule(based on the Dept. at OHS Renton.and 6.00am-6:OOpm at OHS Auburn) of Labor and Industries fee schedule) Emergency Services at VMC's Emergency Department Usual and customary rates Psychiatric Services $60/hour CONTRACT FOR SERVICES—Sep 2007 CITY OF RENTON/VMC-OHS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Nmed City of Renton: OHS: Public Hospital Dis rict No. 1 of King County, d/b/a O e p. io/ Health Services By By 4 --- Kathy Keolker, Mayor Paul M. Larso Administrator, Clinic Services ATTEST: By Bonnie Walton, City Clerk ,4411 Occupational Health Services Agmt. City of Renton Police Department Jail CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON err RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY TOTAL CLOSURE OF DUVALL AVENUE NE/COAL CREEK PARKWAY FROM SUNSET BOULEVARD TO SE 95TH WAY WHEREAS, the City of Renton plans to widen and improve Duvall Avenue NE & Coal Creek Parkway, from Sunset Boulevard to SE 95th Way, including sewer, water and stormwater installation; and WHEREAS, this construction activity will require temporary street closure along Duvall Avenue NE & Coal Creek Parkway, from Sunset Boulevard to SE 95th Way; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code section 9-9-3 the City Council is to authorize such closures by means of a Resolution; 'two NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City Council does hereby authorize the temporary closure of Duvall Avenue NE & Coal Creek Parkway, from Sunset Boulevard to SE 95th Way to occur during the period February 1, 2008, to February 29, 2008, to allow the contractor to construct the roadway and utility improvements. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk iitrw 1 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: RES.1312:11/14/07:ch 2 APPROVED BY I CIT'COUNCIL . Date /a-3-aao7 a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT December 3, 2007 Benson Hill Communities Annexation (June 25, 2007) The Committee of the Whole recommends that the City annex certain territory to the City of Renton effective March i, 2008, such territory comprising approximately 2,406 acres, generally bounded by the City of Renton corporate boundary on the west and north, SE 192nd Street and S 200th Street on the south, and on the east generally along 128th Avenue SE. The Committee finds that all requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by election method have been met, The Committee further recommendsthat the ordinance annexing the Benson Hill Communities be presented for first reading. Toni Nelson, Council Pr- • -nt cc: Alex Pietsch Marty Wine BH anxn ort 120307.doc\ rev 01/07 bh APPROVED BY 1 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Date lg.-3-‘24)°' December 3,2007 s am en do/ ADOPTION OF THE 2008 BUDGET ORDINANCE Referred October 22,2007 The Committee recommends adoption of the 2008 Budget as proposed in the mayor's preliminary budget with the following changes: • Remove the following from recommended appropriations and place as reserves of fund balance for further review-by the Council — 1) $50,000 for the IKEA Performing Arts Center, 2) $700,000 for floating dock removal, 3) $200,000 for Low Income Housing Initiatives `i) Nellkho,hoodQarbegae �/4°° • Add the following items to the 2008 budget appropriation — , t-2-) $12,000 for banners in the downtown $14,000 for interpreter services in the Human Services programs. • Reduce intermittent salaries in EDNSP by$14,000. • Make the following adjustments in estimates— 1)increase solid waste fund revenues by$462,000,2) reduce the Equipment Rental Capital expenditures by$692,000, 3) Increase the estimate of proceeds from bond sale in the Utility Funds by $11,819,435 and authorize the replacement of the bond debt service reserve with a surety purchased during the bond sale transaction. • Move the following capital projects into the 2008 CIP - 1)Houser Way improvements for$350,000 and 2)demolition of the 820 Building at the Airport for$290,000. The Committee recommends appropriations related to serving-the Benson Hill annexation area as follows: • On-going budget appropriations of$8,968,034 including the addition of 90.6 FTEs and $2,738,670 one-time costs. Note: Additional recommendations on one-time costs and capital improvements may be made, by staff during the year. The Committee recommends a total,balanced 2008 Budget of$234,638,924. The Committee further recommends that the ordinances regarding these matters be presented for first reading. Toni Nelson,City Council • esident Cc: Marty Wine,Assistant CAO Mike Bailey,Finance&IS Administrator - Linda Parks,Fiscal Services Director Nancy Violante,Finance Analyst Manager Department Administrators APPROVED BY ..' COMMUNITY SERVICES C6 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Date l"_AOO7 'j. December 3,2007 Municipal Arts Commission: Appointment of Mr. Doug Kyes and Mr. Frederick Lund (ReferredNovember 26, 2007) The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in Mayor Keolker's appointments of Mr. Doug Kyes for an unexpired term, expiring December 31, 2008 (previously held by Roosevelt Lewis) and Mr. Frederick Lund for a term expiring December 31, 2010 (position previously held by Patricia Riggs) to the Municipal Arts Commission. - _JC(C.,------__.... dy Corman, Chair 2 anr --),,,.„.,,,,i, 121111 Marcie Palmer, Vice Chair \kW, Terri Briere, ember C: Peter Renner Terry 4i34s111 yania A!PfOt'Er BY 1 CITY COUNCIL i COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE /a_3_�G07 COMMITTEEE REPORT Date December 3,2007 2°d Round Neighborhood Grant Projects 2007 (Referred November 19, 2007) The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following grant awards. 1. Clover Creek HOA—Restoration of open space located at NW end of bridge on N. 27th Pl. $3,377 2. Honey Creek HOA—Restore traffic circles to original design by adding new plants and conditioning the soil. $1,002 The Committee also recommends approval of funding for the following administrative newsletter applications: 1. Kennydale Neighborhood Association—Annual printing for a newsletter printed quarterly and mailed. $1,890 2. Summerwind Homeowners Association—Annual printing for a newsletter printed quarterly and mailed. $279 3. Tiffany Park Neighborhood Association—Annual printing for a newsletter printed quarterly and distributed door-to-door. $769, This second round of applications total $7,317 with the remaining balance of$452. � / Randy Corman, Chair • C&ice, Marcie Palmer, Vice-Chair ./ Terri Briere, ember cc: Norma McQuiller Suzanne Dale Estey Alex Pietsch AP fOVED BY FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT CITY COUNCIL December 3, 2007 Date /0?-3-,2°07 as art4endec� APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for payment on December 3, 2007, claim vouchers 266537-266884 and 1 wire transfer, totaling $159,489.82 , and 0 direct deposits, 0 payroll vouchers, and 0 wire transfers, totaling($3.829). Don Persson, Chair / Ylar Denis Law, Vice-Chair Dan Clawson, Member APPROVED BY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES C TY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Date 12-3-.200?.. December 3, 2007 Council Committee Assignments f or 2008 The Committee on Committees recommends the following committee chairmanships and committee assignments for the Council for 2008: FINANCE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (2nd&4th Mondays, 5:00 pm) (1S`&3r°Thursdays, 3:00 pm) Don Persson, Chair King Parker, Chair Terri Briere, Vice-Chair Dan Clawson, Vice-Chair King Parker, Member Greg Taylor, Member PUBLIC SAFETY TRANSPORTATION /AVIATION (1St&3fd Mondays, 4:00 pm) (2na&4th Thursdays,4:00 pm) Greg Taylor, Chair Randy Corman, Chair Randy Corman, Vice-Chair Don Persson, Vice-Chair Don Persson, Member Dan Clawson, Member UTILITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES (1st&3f°Thursdays, 2:00 pm) (1S`&3'a Mondays, 5:00 pm) Dan Clawson, Chair Terri Briere, Chair Greg Taylor, Vice-Chair King Parker, Vice-Chair Terri Briere, Member Randy Gorman, Member /VON-AL. 7a .2A Marcie Palmer, President-elect Ra dy Cor - , Pr- ident Pro-Tem-e ect Toni Nelson, Membe PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APPPCIVED BY 1 COMMITTEE REPORT `T' ouNaL December 3, 2007 Date /�- 3- abG 7 Highlands Study Area Rezone Correction (Referred November 12,2007) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the Council adopt the rezoning of the parcels located between Olympia Ave. NE and Monroe Ave. NE, south of NE 12th Street in the Highlands, to Residential Multi-Family zoning in compliance with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations of the Highlands Task Force on Zoning. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. Terri Briere, hair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Jay-GEwifigton. Alex Pietsch Neil Watts Gregg Zimmerman APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Date 1 .-3- 2O67 December 3,2007 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Referred 2/26/2007) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff and Planning Commission recommendation to approve the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and concurrent re-zones as shown on the matrix, Attachment A, 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The ordinance for all Comprehensive Plan amendments, and all concurrent Title IV text amendments is to be presented for first reading on December 3,2007. The ordinances for concurrent re-zones of property included in Applications 2007- M-1 Park Ave, 2007- M-2, Rainier Ave, and 2007 M-5 QIP and Virtu properties, will be presented for first reading December 3, 2007. The ordinances for concurrent re-zones of property included in Application 2007-M-6, Benson Communities, that was annexed into Renton as part of the Hudson Annexation will be presented for adoption in January 2008. The ordinances for concurrent pre-zones of property included in the portion of Application 2007-M-6, Benson Communities, that will be annexed into Renton as part of the Benson Communities Annexation will be presented for adoption prior to the effective date of annexation,March 1, 2008. The ordinances for concurrent pre-zones of property included Application 2007-M-3 Maple Valley Highway Corridor, will be presented for adoption prior t o the effective date of the New Life Aqua/Barn Annexation, and estimated as April 1, 2008. joAir6414,;_) Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair (7146(Lts Marcie Palmer,Member cc: Mayer-KeeIke.. Alex Pietsch,EDNSP Administrator Rebecca Lind, L WsP • ATTACHMENT A-2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FILE# APPLICANT LAND USE-MAPITEXT AMENDMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND REQUEST SUMMARY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION #2007-M-01 Alan Kunovsky Consideration of a Land Use Element Amend the Comprehensive Plan designation Accept the Staff One letter against the Staff Concur with the Staff Park Ave map amendment request to change a to Commercial Neighborhood and recommendation. recommendation. One spoke Recommendation of June developed parcel with Residential concurrently rezone to Commercial asking for clarification. 29,2007. Medium Density land use and R-10 Neighborhood for seven parcels along Park zoning to Commercial Neighborhood Ave. Also amend text regarding the location with CN zoning or Commercial Arterial of parking,so that required parking for with CA zoning. Consideration of business uses can more easily be expanding the commercial designations accommodated at off-site locations. on Park Avenue within the vicinity of 326 Park Avenue to eliminate Residential Medium Density land use with R-10 zoning. #2007-M-02 O'Farrell Land Use Element map amendment to Re-designate the block to Commercial Accept the Staff One spoke supporting the Staff Concur with the Staff Rainier Ave Properties LLC consider designation of property from Corridor with Commercial Arterial zoning. recommendation. recommendation recommendation of June Residential Medium Density with R-10 Amend text to include Rainier Business 29,2007 zoning to Corridor Commercial with CA District Overlay with other business districts zoning. that allow 60 dwelling units per acre. Also City of Renton Comprehensive Plan text amendment amend text so that only mixed-use buildings to modify residential use density and can build to a 60 dwelling units per acre standards in the Corridor Commercial density. designation and/or CA zoning and/or the alternative of modifying the Rainier Business District Overlay designation within the Corridor Commercial designation and CA zoning. #2007-M-03 City of Renton Review of land within the Maple Valley Apply Residential Low Density designation Accept the Staff No public comment. Concur with the staff Maple Valley Highway portion of Renton's Potential with R-4 zoning to Study Areas 5A,6,6A,and recommendation. recommendation of July Hwy Annexation Area for Land Use Element 7;Residential Low Density with RC zoning 19,2007,as amended by Corridor amendments and concurrent prezoning with slopes over 40 percent to Study Area 14, the revised consistent with Renton's adopted land 17,and 23;Residential Low Density with recommendation for PID# use classifications and policies. RMH zoning to Area 25;Residential Low 222305904 dated Density with RMH zoning for portions of Study November 27,2007, Area 23 with slopes less than 40 percent. changing this property Apply Residential Single Family designation from Residential Medium with R-8 zoning to Study Areas 11, 12. 13, Densi ywith R-14 zoning , H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Admin\2007 CPA MATRIX.doc Page 1 • BILE# APPLICANT LANDUSE MAP%rEXT AMENDMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND REQUEST SUMMARY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT DEVELOPMENT REC*MMD�i' ENt`.rON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Area 1 Area 1 Area 1 Area 1 Change the properties from Residential Single Keep the area One letter supporting the Concur with the Staff Family to Residential Low Density with RC Residential Single Planning Commission recommendation of and R-1 zoning. Family designation and recommendation. Two spoke September 27,2007, apply R-8 zoning to the supporting the Planning except for PID# School District Commission recommendation. 2473360270,the Beck properties and to Property. The determine the status of Comprehensive Plan and a parcel north of these zoning recommendation properties. If the parcel for the Beck property is is part of the School revised to designate developed properties, Residential Low Density the zoning should be R- with R-4 zoning on the 8. If it is an 21.2 acre portion of the undeveloped tract and property that are constrained,It should constrained by wetlands be zoned RC. and/or streams and stream buffers,and to designate the 11.8 acre ' remainder as Residential Single Family with R-8. Area 11 Area 11 Area 11 Area 11 Change the properties from Residential Low Accept the Staff No public comment. Concur with the Staff . Density to Residential Medium Density with R- recommendation. recommendation of 14 zoning. September 27,2007. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan Amendments\2007\2007 Admin\2007 CPA MATRIX.doc Page 3 • • FILE#' APPLICANT LAND USVMAP1,tEXT:AMENDMENT STAFF'RECOMMENDATION PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND REQUEST SUMMARY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT DEVELOPMENT ' RECOMMENDATION COMMI7T.EE RECOMMENDATION Area 16 Area 16 Area 16 Area 16 Change the properties from Residential Single Accept the Staff Five letters:two supporting and Concur with the Staff Family to Residential Single Family with R-8 Recommendation with three against the Staff recommendation of ' zoning,Residential Medium Density with R-14 the clarification that it recommendation. Two spoke: September 27,2007, zoning,and Commercial Neighborhood with includes fronting 108`" one supporting and one against except for the existing CN zoning. Ave SE or SE 192nd St the Staff recommendation. multi-family developed or multiple ownerships. property at 19235 108th Ave SE,PID# 6623400181. This property is to be designated Residential Multi-family with RMF zoning as shown in the revised staff report dated November 27,2007. In addition,the text in the Land Use Element Residential Multi-family designation is to be amended as drafted in proposed policy LU-184.1 to incorporate a policy stipulating that existing freestanding multi-family in annexing areas may be considered Multi-family Land Use and multi-family zoning as. Area 2 Area 2 Area 2 Area 2 Retain Residential Single Family and pre- Accept the Staff Three letters,two supporting Concur with the Staff zone with R-8 zoning. recommendation. and one against the Staff recommendation of recommendation. One spoke September 27,2007. against the Staff recommendation. Page 5 H:\EDNSP\Comp PIan\Amendments\2007\2007 Admin\2007 CPA MATRIX.doc FILE# APPLICANT LAND USE MAP/t`EXT AMENDMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND REQUEST SUMMARY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Area 6 Area 6 Area 6 Area 6 Change the properties from Residential Single Accept the Staff One letter supporting the Staff Concur with the staff Family and Residential Medium Density to recommendation. recommendation. One spoke recommendation of Residential Medium Density with R-14 zoning, against the Staff September 27,2007, Commercial Corridor with CA zoning,and recommendation. except as revised on Commercial Neighborhood with CN zoning. November 27,2007,to change the zoning of Renton Fire Station 13, 17040 108th Ave SE from R-10 to R-14 zoning consistent with the Land Use Element Residential Medium Density Policies and with zoning In the surrounding area. Area 12 Area 12 Area 12 Area 12 Change the properties from Residential Single Accept the Staff Two letters,one supporting and Concur with the Staff Family and Residential Medium Density to recommendation. one against the Staff recommendation of , Residential Medium Density with RMH zoning recommendation. Three spoke: September 27,2007 r and Residential Single Family with R-8 two regarding general zoning zoning. issues and one supporting the Staff recommendation. Area 4 Area 4 Area 4 Area 4 Change the properties from Residential Single Accept the Staff One letter supporting the Staff Concur with the Staff Family and Residential Multi-Family to recommendation. recommendation. One spoke recommendation of Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning, regarding general zoning September 27,2007 Residential Medium Density with R-10 zoning, issues. Residential Multi-Family with RMF zoning, and Commercial Corridor with CA zoning. Area 10 Area 10 Area 10 Area 10 Retain the properties in Residential Single Accept the Staff No public comment. Concur with the Staff Family and pre-zone with R-8 zoning and recommendation, recommendation of expand the properties in Commercial Corridor September 27,2007 and pre-zone with CO zoning. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2007\2007 Admin\2007 CPA MATRIX.doc Page 7 r Ad itad l,91-3 2007 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. .1W A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DECLARING A LOCAL EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3411 of the City of Renton, State of Washington, empowers the Mayor and City Council to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency in the City, when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a major emergency or natural disaster; and WHEREAS, Governor Christine Gregoire has declared a state of emergency; and WHEREAS, Renton Fire Chief I. David Daniels,Emergency Services Administrator, recommends that an emergency be declared in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, Mayor Kathy Keolker and the City Council are requested by the Emergency Services Administrator to proclaim the existence of a local emergency therein; and WHEREAS, said Mayor and City Council do hereby find that conditions of peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within the City, caused by a storm with heavy rains starting at midnight, on the 3rd day of December, 2007; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. The declarations of emergency declared by the Governor and Renton Fire Chief are approved, confirmed and adopted by the City Council; and SECTION III. It is hereby proclaimed that during the existence of said local emergency, the powers, functions, and duties necessary to stabilize and control said incident are given to the Emergency Services Administrator; and SECTION IV. The local emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the Mayor and City Council. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney C:\Documents and Settings\MWine\Desktop\emerg decl 120307.doc CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5, FIRE DEPARTMENT, OF TITLE III, "DEPARTMENTS," OF ORDINANCE 4260, ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON" CHANGING THE DUTIES OF THE FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR AND TO CHANGE T::1 SPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENT DIVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Chapter 5 of Title III, Departments, shall be amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 5 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT SECTION: 3-5-1: Establishment of Department 3-5-2: Appointment of Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator 3-5-3: Duties of Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator 3-5-4: Qualifications of Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator 3-5-5: Sections Within the Fire and Emergency Services Department 3-5-1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT: There is hereby created and established a Fire and Emergency Services Department. 3-5-2 APPOINTMENT OF FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR: The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council. The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator shall be excluded from the classified civil service system as permitted by RCW 41.08.050. err 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3-5-3 DUTIES OF FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR: The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator shall be responsible for any duties associated with the city's overall prevention, preparedness, response to, recovery from or mitigation activities associated with emergencies and/or disasters including but not limited to: A. Performing duties in city ordinance or policies assigned to the Fire Chief, Chief of the Fire Department or City Emergency Manager. B. Planning, organizing, coordinating and directing the Department's services and functions including community risk reduction, response operations, member safety and support services. C. Providing relevant information to the Mayor and City Council. D. Supervising and evaluating the performance of assigned personnel. E. Utilizing the Administrator's authority to make rules and issue orders for the proper .446.0 functioning of the Department, consistent with laws, Council policies and the rules of the Civil Service Commission. 3-5-4 QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR: The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator must possess those qualifications deemed necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City's Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator job classification. 3-5-5 SECTIONS WITHIN THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT A. Office of the Fire Chief: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1. The Office of the Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator shall be responsible for the strategic vision and direction of the department as well as the safety and public information programs. 2. Emergency Management Division: The Emergency Management Division shall be responsible for city wide emergency mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery programming. B. Response Operations Section: The Response Operations Section shall be primarily responsible for responding to incidents, emergencies and disaster calls for service to minimize the loss of life, protect property and the environment and bring emergencies to resolution in the most expedient manner possible. Individual shifts (and battalions) shall be the equivalent of Divisions in other sections of the Noir department. C. Safety/Support Services Section: The Safety/Support Services Section shall be responsible for the protection of an internal working environment that supports the mission of the department itself. 1. Safety/Training Division: The Safety/Training Division shall be responsible for the training and development of members of the department with the intent of increasing their level of competence, thereby providing increased safety for members and those served by the department. err 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2. Administration Division: The Administration Division shall be responsible for management of fiscal, human resource, purchasing and information technology programs in support of the mission of the department. 3. Logistics Division: The Logistics Division is responsible for the management of department assets including buildings, vehicles, and other pieces of equipment as well as coordination with other departments and organizations that provide similar services city wide. D. Community Risk Reduction Section: 1. Hazard Mitigation Division: The Hazard Mitigation Division shall be responsible for programs and activities that address hazards that cannot be prevented in the city, but require management to minimize the potential of harm to residents; including code development and enforcement as well as cause and origin investigation. 2. Technical Services Division: The Technical Services Division shall be responsible for programs and activities intended to minimize the occurrence of new hazards in the city including community relations and education, plans review and coordination of special events and operations from an emergency services perspective. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 4 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ORD:13 82:09/17/07:ch 5 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ,4100, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 8, MUNICIPAL ARTS COMMISSION, OF TITLE II (COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON" BY INTRODUCING A FIVE-YEAR MASTER PLAN FOR ARTS AND CULTURE; CLARIFYING HOW FUNDING IS ESTABLISHED AND ADJUSTED FOR THE 1% FOR ART FUND; AND SCHEDULING THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE TWO-YEAR PLAN FOR PROJECTS SLATED FOR THE 1% FOR ART FUND, TO BE COMPLETED DURING THE ANNUAL CITY BUDGET PREPARATION PROCESS. SECTION I. Sections 2-8-2 and 2-8-3 of Chapter 8, Municipal Arts Commission, of Title II, Commissions and Boards, of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows: 2-8-2 PURPOSE: +�rrr The City of Renton recognizes and acknowledges the importance of and benefit to the public in providing visual art and performance in its public works and facilities, and to encourage and promote such art and the work of artists. It shall therefore be the policy of the City, unless otherwise prohibited or limited by law, to direct and further the inclusion of art in its public works. The term "art" shall be liberally construed and include the conscious production of arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty and is of aesthetic value. 2-8-3 FUNCTION: A. The Commission shall act in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council in connection with the artistic and cultural development of the City. The Commission shall also act as the conservator of the City's works of public art. ORDINANCE NO. B. The Commission shall be responsible for reviewing the design, execution, and acceptance of works of art funded or otherwise acquired by the City. Procedures for these responsibilities shall be developed by the Commission in writing and a copy thereof shall be filed with the City Clerk of the City and furnished unto the office of the Mayor and City Council. Such procedures shall not be in full force and effect until approved by the City Council. C. The Commission shall develop a Five-Year Master Plan for Arts and Culture, which shall include the City's vision and goals for future works of public art, and a strategic plan for implementing these goals. The Five-Year Master Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Mayor and City Council on an annual basis. During the Commission's annual review of all capital improvement projects as set forth in Section D below, the Mayor shall propose, for Council review and approval, which Master Plan elements should receive funding based on the projected Nod 1% for Art funding guidelines as set forth in RMC 2-8-7 or as otherwise determined by the City Council. D. Prior to August 1 of each year or during the City's annual budget process, the Commission shall review with the Mayor, or his/her representative, all capital improvement projects anticipated within the following two (2) year period to determine which projects are appropriate for inclusion of works of art and to estimate the amount to be allocated for said purpose. The Mayor, with appropriate budgetary authorization from the City Council, may establish the amount to be provided for the project(s), as guided by RMC 2-8-7. If, however, the Mayor decides that there will be no funds expended for art on a municipal construction project, and upon concurrence from the City Council, then the funds allocated therefor shall be expended as set forth in RMC 2-8-7C or as otherwise determined by the City Council. Copies of any 2 ORDINANCE NO. proposals prepared by the Commission shall likewise be furnished to the Community Services %me Department of the City. 1. Definition of municipal construction project: Any public building, decorative or commemorative structure, park, street, sidewalk, parking facility, or any portion thereof, within the City limits, which will be constructed, renovated or remodeled, and paid for wholly or in part by the City, and the total project cost of which exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)to construct, renovate or remodel. 2. "Municipal construction project" shall not be defined to include capital projects paid for wholly or in part by the City's water and sewer utility. E. Whenever a work of art is to be funded under this Chapter the Commission shall, under its guidelines, select the appropriate work(s)of art and recommend that work(s) of art to the City Council. The City Council shall consider the recommendation of the Commission and either approve or refuse to approve the recommended work(s) of art. Should the Council refuse to approve the work(s) of art, then the Commission shall consider and recommend another work(s)of art to the City Council. Should the City Council approve the work(s) of art, then the administration shall proceed to contract with the appropriate artist or artists to obtain the work(s) of art. The contract with the artist or artists will be administered by the City staff. F. Maintenance, inspection and rotation of works of art selected and installed under the advice and direction of the Renton Municipal Arts Commission shall be the responsibility of the administration of the City. The Commission may develop a conservation policy from which it may prepare specifications for a maintenance plan for the City's works of art. The artwork maintenance shall be performed by the City's Facilities Division. The Commission shall inspect 3 AIMIlk ORDINANCE NO. such maintenance work and make recommendations for the guidance of the administration in so maintaining the works of art. G. The Commission shall seek, whenever appropriate, alternative sources of financing for the visual and/or performing arts. H. The Commission shall be responsible for disbursing money budgeted to it for support of cultural arts performances, arts related activities and organizations. Such money shall be used to support specific performances such as choral concerts or play performances, performing arts events such as the River Days Art Show, or special projects of a performing arts group such as coaches and music tutors for the Renton Youth Symphony. Such funds may not be used for capital purchases, facility renovations, maintenance or other non-performance expenditures. Any such funded performance must be held in Renton and primarily benefit Renton residents. SECTION II. Section 2-8-7 of Chapter 8, Municipal Arts Commission, of Title II, Commissions and Boards, of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 2-8-7 WORKS OF ART AND PUBLIC FACILITIES: A. Subject to the consultation requirements of RMC 2-8-3D, all authorizations and/or appropriations for Municipal construction'projects shall, concurrently, upon budgeting therefor by the City Council and authorization by the Mayor, whenever legally permitted, include an amount equal to not less than one percent (1%) of the actual total project cost, to be used for the selection, acquisition and/or installation of works of art to be placed in, on, or about City public facilities, which are suitable and appropriate therefor. The amount that is then transferred to the 1% for Art Fund, based on the project's budget cost that is used for planning Nod 4 ORDINANCE NO. purposes, shall be adjusted up or down from that amount, based on the actual total project cost after it has been completed. In the event any law, rule or regulation establishing a source of funds for a particular project, including but not limited to grants, loans, or assistance from Federal, State or other governmental units, prohibits, limits or excludes art and art works as a proper expenditure, then the amount of funds from such source shall be excluded in computing the one percent (1%) amount of the total project cost. B. All funds authorized and/or appropriated pursuant to this Section shall be maintained in the 1% for Arts Fund. The City Council, upon the recommendation and advice of the Commission, shall approve, from time to time, the amount to be allocated for the selection, acquisition and/or installation of individual works of art to be placed either as an integral part of the municipal construction project in connection with which the funds were appropriated or attached thereto, or detached within or outside such project, or to be placed in, on or about other public facilities. All of such expenditures for art shall be approved by the City Council and as otherwise provided by law. C. Funds authorized and/or appropriated pursuant to this Section for a municipal construction project but not expended on any such project shall be placed and retained in the 1% for Arts Reserve Fund. If for any reason any transfer to such Fund shall be contrary to law or prohibited by any rule or regulation governing such funds, then any such unspent or residual sum authorized and/or appropriated as a part of such construction project may be expended for any like or similar public purpose or purposes relating to the selection, acquisition and/or installation of works of art. SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective after its passage, approval, and 30 days after its publication. w 5 ORDINANCE NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1401:10/31/07:ch Ned 6 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON D f? a FT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2008. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has met and considered its budget for the calendar year 2008; and WHEREAS, the residents of the area generally known as the Benson Hill Annexation have approved annexation to the City of Renton by vote resulting in the City of Renton extending City services to this area effective March 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings for the purpose of accepting testimony related to the 2008 Budget on November 26, 2007 and again on December 3, 2007; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION I. After due notice and public hearing thereon as provided by law, the annual budget for the City of Renton for the year 2008, previously prepared and filed with the City Clerk, as modified hereby,be and is hereby ratified, confirmed and adopted, in all respects, as such annual budget for the year 2008. Such annual budget is detailed in Attachment A, 2008 Budget Summary by Fund, Resources and Expenditures, which is incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION II. Attachment A defines the total sums authorized and allowed for expenditures and establishes such sums in each of the funds in the annual 2008 budget. ORDINANCE NO. SECTION III. Attachment B describes the amounts and positions authorized specifically for the purpose of extending City services to the Benson Hill Annexation Area. SECTION IV. Acts pursuant to this Ordinance,but prior to its passage or effective date, are hereby ratified and confirmed. SECTION V. A copy of the annual 2008 budget, as herein adopted, shall be transmitted to the Office of the State Auditor, Division of Municipal Corporations, and such other governmental agencies as provided by law. SECTION VI. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of _ , 2007. rriS Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: C:\DOCUME-I\BWalton\LOCALS—I\Temp\2008 Annual Budget Ordinance.doc ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT A °itirr 2008 Budget Summary By Fund,Resources and Expenditures 2008 Baseline Budget 2008 Benson Annexation Budget 2008 Total Budget Fund Resources Expenditures Resources Expenditures Resources Expenditures GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS: 000/General 82,237,942 82,237,942 8,584,841 8,584,841.00 90,822,783 90,822,783 001/Community Services 003/Street 004/Community Dev Block Grant 006/Library 007/Parking Garage Maintenance 010/Fire Memorial Fund 011/Fire Health and Wellness 215/Gen.Govt.Misc.Debt Service 4,269,400 4,269,400 4,269,400 4,269,400 201/Ltd G.O.Bonds/Gen.Govt.Mise. Debt Svc 207/1978 Limited G.O.Bonds SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: 102/Arterial Street 585,000 585,000 585,000 585,000 108/Leased City Properties 1,062,272 1,062,272 84,564 84,564 1,146,836 1,146,836 110/Hotel/Motel Fund 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 118/Reserve for Paths&Trails 0 0 0 0 125/1%For Art 77,505 77,505 77,505 77,505 127/Cable Communication 74,778 74,778 74,778 74,778 131/Park Memorial 0 0 0 0 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS: Ir" 219/1989 Unlimited G.O.Bonds 548,750 548,750 548,750 548,750 220/L.I.D.Debt Service Fund 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS(CIP): 301/Garage CIP 0 0 0 0 303/Community Dev.Mitigation Fund 0 0 0 0 304/Fire Mitigation Fund 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 305/Transportation Mitigation Fund 1,873,229 1,873,229 1,873,229 1,873,229 307/Aquatics Center 0 0 0 0 316/Municipal Facilities CIP 13,708,000 13,708,000 13,708,000 13,708,000 317/Transportation CIP 29,928,671 29,928,671 29,928,671 29,928,671 318/South Lake WA Infrastructure Project 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 ENTERPRISE FUNDS: 402/Airport 1,363,192 1,363,192 1,363,192 1,363,192 422/Airport Capital Improvement 1,895,000 1,895,000 1,895,000 1,895,000 403/Solid Waste Utility 11,184,614 11,184,614 11,184,614 11,184,614 404/Golf Course 2,518,431 2,518,431 2,518,431 2,518,431 424/Golf Course Capital Fund 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 405/Water Utility Operation Fund 11,326,749 11,326,749 11,326,749 11,326,749 406/Wastewater Operation Fund 5,705,445 5,705,445 5,705,445 5,705,445 407/Storni Water Utility Operation Fund 4,247,023 4,247,023 575,811 575,811 4,822,834 4,822,834 416/King County Metro Fund 10,032,000 10,032,000 10,032,000 10,032,000 425/Water Utility Construction Fund 8,875,000 8,875,000 8,875,000 8,875,000 144111111.1 426/Wastewater Utility Construction Fund 3,125,000 3,125,000 3,125,000 3,125,000 41111111. ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT A 2008 Budget Summary By Fund,Resources and Expenditures 2008 Baseline Budget 2008 Benson Annexation Budget 2008 Total Budget Fund Resources Expenditures Resources Expenditures Resources Expenditures 427/Storm Water Utility Construction Fund 3,526,667 3,526,667 3,526,667 3,526,667 451/Waterworks Revenue Bond Fund 0 0 0 0 461/Waterworks Bond Reserve 83,244 83,244 83,244 83,244 471/Waterworks Rate Stablilization 0 0 0 0 481/2004 Water/Sewer Bonds 0 0 0 0 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS: 501/Equipment Rental 4,318,359 4,318,359 2,063,216 2,063,216 6,381,575 6,381,575 503/InformationSystemFund 5,159,436 5,159,436 398,272 398,272 5,557,708 5,557,708 502/Insurance 2,978,103 2,978,103 2,978,103 2,978,103 512/Healthcare Insurance 8,994,169 8,994,169 8,994,169 8,994,169 522/LEOFF1 Retirees Healthcare Insurance Fund 1,889,434 1,889,434 1,889,434 1,889,434 FIDUCIARY FUNDS: 61 1/Firemen's Pension 507,807 507,807 507,807 507,807 TOTALS 222,932,220 222,932,220 11,706,704 11,706,704 234,638,924 234,638,924 NS ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT B "%Now 2008 Budget to serve Benson Hill Annexation OPERATING: GENERAL FUND 2008 Ongoing 2008 One- Fund Department FTE Compensation Operating Costs Time Costs Administrative,Judicial& Legal Services Subtotal 5.50 340,394 577,333 18,000 Econ Development, Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Subtotal 5.50 265,968 - 140,000 Finance &Information Svs Subtotal 5.00 379,337 - 249,150 Human Resources&Risk Mgmt Subtotal 2.00 188,511 - 75,000 Police Subtotal 31.00 2,484,313 1,114,000 502,000 Fire&Emergency Services Subtotal 9.00 662,882 - 29,700 Community Services Subtotal 6.50 460,490 468,318 329,020 Planning, Building, Public Works Subtotal 17.40 1,014,784 354,900 755,800 OPERATING: ENTERPRISE FUNDS 8.70 501,104 155,700 640,000 Grand Totals by Fund Niseeneral Gov't 000 $ 8,584,841 $ 5,427,470 $ 2,402,851 $ 754,520 Utilities 401 575,811 575,811 - - ER&R 501 2,063,216 65,816 267,400 1,730,000 Info. Svcs 503 398,272 149,122 - 249,150 Facilities 108 84,564 79,564 - 5,000 Gen. CIP 316 - - Trans CIP 317 - - TOTAL $ 11,706,704 90.60 6,297,783.00 2,670,251.33 2,738,670.00 After CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1 "ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT" OF TITLE 4 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO ALLOW FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection C. (Charges for Equitable Share of Public Works Facilities) and Subsection I. (Temporary Utility Connection Fees) of Section 4-1-180 (Public Works Fees) of Chapter 1 "Administration and Enforcement" of Title 4 (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, 'slaw Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows: 4-1-180 PUBLIC WORKS FEES: C. CHARGES FOR EQUITABLE SHARE OF PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES: Owners of properties to which improvements are being proposed that have not been assessed or charged an equitable share of the cost of public works facilities, such as water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water systems, and street improvements including signalization and lighting, shall be subject to one or more of the charges listed in the following subsections. Any fees triggered by improvements or development, as detailed in this Section, are due and payable at the first of the following instances: • Prior to the issuance of a Public Works Construction Peiuiit; or Now 1 • Prior to the recording of a single family residential plat or single family residential short plat; or • Prior to the issuance of a building permit. • In all cases, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy(either temporary or final). All of the following charges shall be paid into the appropriate utility or street fund except that any fees collected under a private latecomer's agreement shall be passed on to the holder of the agreement with the applicable fees paid to the appropriate utility or street fund. 1. Privately Held Latecomer's Fees and Special Assessment District (Formerly Known as City Held Latecomer's) Fees: a. Applicability of Privately Held Latecomer's Fee: The City has the discretionary power, as detailed in chapter 9-5 RMC, to grant latecomer's agreements to developers and owners for the reimbursement of a pro rata portion of public works facilities (water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water systems, and street improvements including signalization and lighting) they install and turn over to the City. b. Applicability of Special Assessment District Fee: The special assessment charge is a fee that enables the City to recover a pro rata portion of the original costs of public works improvements (water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water systems, and street improvements including signalization and lighting) from the owners of property who would benefit from future connections to, or future users of, improvements to the City's infrastructure that were not 2 ORDINANCE installed by LIDs or by a private developer under a latecomer agreement. The Nur imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning these charges are detailed in chapter 9-16 RMC, Special Assessment Districts. Interest may be charged pursuant to RMC 9-16-6, Payments to City. c. Exemptions for Latecomer's or Special Assessment District Fees: i. Segregation of Fees: The City may grant segregation of private developer latecomer's fees or special assessment district fees on large parcels of land per subsection (C) (3) of this Section. ii. Relief Due to Two (2) Similar Facilities: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will consider relieving a parcel of a latecomer's or special assessment district fee/assessment if the w property has a benefit from either(but not both) of two (2) similar facilities. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will make the decision based on engineering and policy decisions as to which facility(ies) benefit and/or are utilized by the parcel. The assessment due would be that associated with the utilized facility. If there are no sound engineering or policy reasons that indicate one facility over the other, the City shall give the applicant the choice of facilities to utilize. iii. Relief Due to Future Subdivision: At the time the latecomer's agreement or special assessment district is formed, and as a condition of the latecomer's agreement or special assessment district, the City may err require that the assessment against a parcel be divided such that a single 3 r • ORDINANCE family residential connection will be assessed based upon the size of a typical single family residential lot in that area. The remainder of the cost attributed to said site will be due at such time as the parcel develops further either by subdivision or increased density. In the case of a special assessment district, interest will continue to accrue on the remaining portion of the assessment. iv.Reallocation of Assessment Due to Subdivision of Property: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will consider reallocation of the latecomer's assessment or the special assessment if a property is subdivided for any purpose other than single family use. Reallocation may be granted based upon front footage, area, or other equitable means. Consideration may be given to adjusting the assessment between the new parcels, based upon value of benefit from the improvements, such that two (2) similar parcels may pay different amounts because one receives more benefit. 2. System Development Charges (SDC) —Water, Wastewater, and Storm Water: The City has authority under RCW 35.92.025 to impose charges, which are commonly referred to as "system development charges", on property owners in order that said property owners shall bear their equitable cost share of the City's utility system(s). a.Applicability of System Development Charge: The system development charge is hereby imposed against properties and, by inference, the owners of said properties that are benefiting from and/or increasing the level of usage of the 4 ORDINANCE City's utility system(s). Said property owner(s) shall pay, prior to connection to or benefit from a City utility system, the system development charge associated with that utility as detailed in the fees table(s) in subsection (C) (2) (b) of this Section. A parcel may benefit from a City utility system during the development or redevelopment of the property with or without a connection to an established facility. Therefore, the system development charge for a utility may be triggered without a physical connection to an existing facility. i. "Utility System" shall mean: • The sanitary sewer system, including but not limited to lift stations, force mains, interceptors and other sewer mains. • The storm water system, including but not limited to flow control Nolo or water quality facilities, flood hazard reduction improvements, lift stations, force mains, interceptors, and other storm water storage, treatment, collection and conveyance systems used for management of storm water runoff. • The water system, including but not limited to wells, pump stations, water treatment facilities, reservoirs and water mains. ii. The phrase "increasing the level of usage of a City utility system(s)," as used in this Section, shall mean any of the following: • First Time Service Connection or Benefit: Any property that is connecting to or benefiting from a Renton utility system for the 5 ORDINANCE first time (including but not limited to new construction, conversion from private well, or conversion from septic system). • Property that is being improved, developed, redeveloped, or subdivided and as part of said action has installed an additional water meter(s), has installed a larger water meter(s) or creates additional impervious surface (for the purpose of this code, conversion of a gravel area to asphalt, concrete, or other impervious surface shall be considered additional impervious surface). iii. The basis for the charge of Systems Development Charges shall be: • Storm Water: The addition of any new impervious surface to properties will require payment of the System Development Charge for storm water for the additional new impervious surface only. If a property is making a connection for the first time to a storm water system, it will only require payment of the System Development Charge for stoini water for the impervious surface tributary to the point of connection. Any rebuilding, change in use or additions to property that does not create additional impervious surface or does not cause a first time connection to be made will not require payment of the System Development Charge for storm water. *0010 6 ORDINANCE New single-family development will pay based upon a flat rate per dwelling unit. Existing single-family development that has previously connected will pay based upon square foot of additional impervious surface. Existing single-family development that is connecting for the first time will pay based upon a flat rate per dwelling unit. Commercial and multi family development will pay based upon square foot of additional impervious surface. • Wastewater: The addition of a new domestic water meter, increasing the size of an existing domestic water meter, conversion of a non-domestic water meter to domestic use, or the first time connection of a property to the sanitary sewer system will require payment of the System Development Charge. For each additional domestic meter installed, the charge shall be based upon the size of the additional meter(s). For each increased domestic meter, the charge shall be for the size of the new domestic meter minus the charge for the domestic meter being replaced. For the conversion of a non-domestic water meter to domestic use, the charge will be based upon the size of the meter converted to domestic use. For the first time connection of an existing developed property to the sewer system, the charge shall be based upon the size of the domestic meters for the property. • Water: The addition of a new domestic or irrigation water meter, 4ii"`` increasing the size of an existing water meter, or the addition of a 7 ORDINANCE service for fire protection will require the payment of the System Development Charge. For each additional meter installed, the charge shall be based upon the size of the additional meter(s). For each increase in meter size, the charge shall be for the size of the new meter minus the charge for the meter being replaced. For the addition or increase in size of a service for fire protection, the charge shall be based upon the size of the fire service (NOT the size of the detector bypass meter). iv. Charges not refunded for a reduction in service: Systems Development Charges will not be refunded if the service basis, as described above, is reduced. The service level, prior to reduction, may be considered as existing level of service as described below. v. Existing Level of Service: The existing level of service shall be the baseline for any additional Systems Development Charges. Said baseline level of service shall be determined by existing connections; existing size, type and number of water meters; and existing impervious surfaces. When a previously developed property has participated in demolition of existing improvements, then the baseline level of service shall be the highest level of developed condition within the five-year period preceding the date of application. Any development of the property that has been removed for more than five years shall not be considered when calculating additional fees. For demolished impervious surfaces, the City reserves the right to utilize construction drawings, aerial photos, or 8 ORDINANCE topographic maps to best determine square footage of impervious surface Now., prior to demolition. For storm water, when increasing the level of density of single family by the addition of units or redevelopment to commercial or multi-family, the existing level of service baseline shall be as follows: when the existing level of service is single-family and the proposed service is single-family, the baseline shall be existing dwelling units. When the existing level of service is single-family and the proposed service is other than single- family, the baseline shall be the square footage equivalent of the existing dwelling units. For example, if a property owner removed all improvements from a two acre parcel that had a one-inch domestic water meter, a one-inch irrigation water meter, was connected to sanitary sewer, and was fifty percent impervious and that parcel sat vacant for two years, those improvements would be considered when calculating additional system development charges. Exceptions: The addition of an irrigation meter only for an existing single family residential dwelling will not trigger a system development charge for water or sewer. 9 ORDINANCE The addition of a second domestic meter to an existing duplex in order to divide consumption for billing purposes will not trigger a system development charge. Improvements to existing single-family residential units that have had the system development charge for storm water paid per dwelling unit shall be exempt from charges for additional impervious surfaces unless the additional impervious surface is created by the addition of single family units or by development other than single-family. Improvements to existing single family residential units such as additions that are less than five hundred (500) square feet of new impervious surface are exempt from the system development charge for storm water unless a new connection to the Renton storm water system is proposed or required as part of the permit application. b. System Development Charge Tables: i. Water and Wastewater System Development Charges: Water Meter or Water service Fire Service Fee Wastewater Fee or Fire Service Fee Amount Amount Amount Size 5/8" x 3/4" Inch $2,236 $292 $1,591 1 inch $5,589 $729 $3,977 1 '/z inch $11,179 $1,458 $7,954 2 inch $17,886 $2,332 $12,726 3 inch $35,711 $4,665 $25,452 4 inch $55,893 $7,288 $39,768 6 inch $111,786 $14,577 $79,537 8 inch $178,857 $23,323 $127,258 10 ORDINANCE a Based upon the size of the fire service (NOT detector bypass meter) w b Unless a separate fire service is provided, the System Development Charge(s) shall be based upon the size of the meter installed and a separate fire service fee will not be charged. ii. Storm Water System Development Charges: Type of Land Use Storm Water Fee Amount: New single family residence $1,012.00 per dwelling unit (including mobile/manufactured homes) Addition to existing single family $0.405 per square foot of new residence greater than 500 square impervious surface but not more feet (including mobile/manufactured than $1,012.00 homes) All Other Uses $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface, but not less itorie than $1,012.00 c. Examples: Example 1: A redevelopment project involves a single family home on a ten thousand (10,000) square foot lot with a five-eighths inch by three-quarter inch meter(5/8" x 3/4") that has been previously connected to the city's sanitary sewer system and to the storm water system being changed to a commercial usage with a one and one-half inch (1-1/2") domestic meter, three-quarter inch (3/4") irrigation meter, and two inch (2") fire service. The completed development will have a total of 9,000 square feet of impervious surface. The property owner will pay the Nome following charges: 11 ORDINANCE For water: 1-1/2" Domestic $11,179 3/4" Irrigation $2,236 2"Fire Service $2,332 Credit for existing 3/4" -$2,236 Total $13,511 For Sanitary Sewer: 1-1/2" Domestic $7,954 Credit for existing 3/4" -$1,591 Total $6,363 For Storm Water: 9,000 square feet x $0.405 = $3,645 Credit for Single Family -$1,012 Total $2,633 Example 2: A property owner is planning to redevelop a half acre parcel that includes a single family home with a five-eighths inch by three-quarter inch meter (5/8" x 3/4"), a connection to the city sanitary sewer system and has never connected to the storm water system or paid the 'per unit' system development charge. The new development will be an eight (8) unit multi-family dwelling with a two inch (2") meter, a three-quarter inch (3/4") irrigation meter, and a four inch (4") fire service for sprinklers. The completed development will have a total of 17,000 square feet of impervious surface. The property owner will pay the 00 following charges: ""' 12 ORDINANCE For water: Noire 2" Domestic $17,886 3/4" Irrigation $2,236 4" Fire Service $7,288 Credit for existing 3/4" -$2,236 Total $25,174 For Sanitary Sewer: 2"Domestic $12,726 Credit for existing 3/4" -$1,591 Total $11,135 For Storm Water: 17,000 square feet x $0.405 = $6,88.5 Credit for Single Family -$0 Total $6,885 Example 3: A property owner is planning to redevelop a half acre parcel that includes an existing commercial use with a one inch (1") domestic meter, a three- quarter inch (3/4") irrigation meter, a one inch (1") fire service, a connection to the city sanitary sewer system, and 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. The new development will be commercial with a two inch (2") meter, a three-quarter inch (3/4") irrigation meter, and a four inch (4") fire service for sprinklers. The completed development will have a total of 19,000 square feet of impervious surface. The property owner will pay the following charges: 13 ORDINANCE For water: 2" Domestic $17,886 3/4" Irrigation $2,236 4" Fire Service $7,288 Credit for existing 1" domestic -$5,589 Credit for existing 3/4" irrigation -$2,236 Credit for 1" Fire Service -$729 Total $18,856 For Sanitary Sewer: 2"Domestic $12,726 Credit for existing 1" domestic -$3,977 Total $8,749 ,11.01 For Storm Water: 19,000 square feet x $0.405 = $7,695 Credit for 5,000 square feet x $0.405 = -$2,025 Total $5,670 Example 4: A redevelopment project that involves two single family homes on two lots totaling 38,500 square feet with each house having a five-eighths inch by three-quarter inch meter(5/8" x 3/4"), one house connected to the city sanitary sewer system, and the other house on septic. One house has previously connected to the storm water system, the other has not connected or paid the per unit' system development charge. The completed development will be six single family homes with each home having a 1" domestic meter, a fire sprinkler system served 14 ORDINANCE through the domestic meter, and a connection to the City sewer system. The property owner will pay the following charges: For water: 6 - 1" Domestic meters x 5,589 = $33,534 Credit for 2 exist 3/4" domestic x 2,236 = -$4,472 Fire Service (included in meters, no separate service) $0 Total $29,062 For Sanitary Sewer: 6 - 1" Domestic meters x 3,977 = $23,862 Credit for I exist 3/4" domestic -$1,591 Total $22,271 For Stone Water: 6 single family x 1,012 = $6,072 Credit for 1 single family -$1,012 Total $5,060 d. Exemptions to System Development Charge: i. Installation of an Irrigation Meter Solely for the Purpose of Providing Irrigation Water to City Right-of-Way: Installation of a water meter solely for the purpose of providing irrigation water to City right-of-way is exempted from the system development charge. ii. Exemption for City-Owned Property: No system development *tawta charge will be collected on City-owned properties. The benefits to the 15 ORDINANCE utility from the use of other City properties such as utility easements, lift stations and other benefits offset the amount of the system development charge. iii. Storm Water Exemption for Infiltration Facility: Developments that infiltrate or contain on site one-hundred percent(100%) of the on-site storm water runoff volume from a one hundred (100) year storm are exempt from the storm water system development charge. For the application of this credit, the owner/developer must use the current design criteria to show that the infiltration facility will infiltrate all of the volume of runoff produced from the site during the one hundred (100) year storm. For purposes of this code `on-site' includes all land within the boundary of Nod the development. If the development benefits from the City storm water system because the city system provides drainage for any of the lots, tracts, roadways, etc within the development, it will not qualify for this exemption. If a development that is granted an exemption under this Section discharges water off-site during a one hundred (100) year storm or less, the development shall be required to make corrections or improvements to the on-site system such that it will infiltrate up to the one hundred (100) year storm. If, in the future, the development can no longer infiltrate one hundred percent (100%) of the on-site storm water runoff from a one hundred (100) year storm, the system development charge shall be due and 16 ORDINANCE payable as a condition of the connection to or utilization of the City's Nraw storm water system. Nothing in this Section shall relieve the property owner(s) from complying with the City's current flow control and water quality treatment standards at the time the development converts from one hundred percent (100%) infiltration to use of the City storm system. When a development is converted from one hundred percent (100%) infiltration to use of the City storm system, the storm water management standards used shall consider the existing conditions prior to the property being developed under the one hundred percent (100%) infiltration exemption and the developed conditions at the time the conversion is made. There may be certain areas within the City that partially or completely prohibit the use of infiltration facilities. If a current or future code or standard prohibits or limits the use of infiltration facilities to any level below the one hundred (100) year storm, the development will not qualify for this exemption. iv. Storm Water Exemption for Direct Discharge to Lake Washington: Developments with property directly abutting the Lake Washington shoreline that direct discharges one hundred percent (100%) of the on-site storm water runoff to the lake through their own private storm system located solely on the development property(ies) are exempt from the storm water system development charge. If the development 4411110. 17 ORDINANCE benefits from the City storm water system because the city system provides drainage for any of the lots, tracts, roadways, etc within the development, it will not qualify for this exemption. Any direct discharge to waters or natural drainage courses other than Lake Washington will not qualify for this exemption. 3. Segregation Criteria and Rules: Except for parcels being developed for single family use, the ability exists for the segregation of special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charges (if permitted by the latecomer's agreement) if there is partial development of a large parcel of property. This segregation shall be based on the following criteria and rules: a. Segregation by Plat or Short Plat: Charges shall be deteimined on the basis of the specific platted properties being developed regardless of the parcel size. Unplatted or large-platted parcels may be platted or short-platted prior to development, in which case the special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge will be applied to the specific platted lots being developed. b. Segregation by Administrative Determination: For the partial development of a large tract of property, the owner may apply for a segregation of the special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge(s) for the specific portion of the property to be developed. The burden of establishing the segregation by legal description, number of units, and map would be on the party owing the fee and not the City. The following criteria shall determine the segregation of fees: ,4400 18 ORDINANCE i. Provisions: This provision shall apply to all developments with the Now exception of single family residential home developments. ii. Segregation of Fees: The segregation of fees shall be by formal, written agreement, including a legal description approved by the City, which shall be recorded as a restrictive covenant running with the land. The restrictive covenant shall list the percentage of the special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge fee that has been paid for the property. The applicant shall also include a detailed plan, drafted to current adopted City standards, of the proposed development, which shall include the proposed boundary line, as described in the legal description, for the special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge determination. iii. Segregated Areas: Minimum size of area segregated for determination and payment of special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge(s) shall be two (2) acres. The segregated area shall include, but not be limited to, all contiguous existing developed land for which the special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge(s) have not been paid; all proposed buildings; driveways and sidewalks; parking areas; grass and landscape areas; public access areas; storm water systems; and improvements required for mitigation of environmental impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The boundary line for the segregation of special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge shall be established by survey and legal description and shall not be closer than fifteen feet (15') to any structure. 19 ORDINANCE iv. Remnant Parcel: Minimum size of the remnant parcel of undeveloped property for which the special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge is deferred shall be two (2) acres. Should the property partially paid for under this Section later develop, then that property shall pay the special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge fee in place at the time of development. Should the property partially paid for under this Section later be subdivided, then the partial payment credit shall run with the subdivided lots. The burden of establishing that the partial payment has been made would be on the party owing the fee and not on the City. v.Determination of Charge: The special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge shall be determined on the basis of the percentage of a property that is developed (existing development plus proposed *4401 development). When a proposed development takes a parcel over the threshold of full development, as described in this Section, one hundred percent (100%) of the special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge(s) is owed and any balance is due and payable. vi. Full Development: For the purpose of this Code, "full development" is considered to be sixty percent (60%) property coverage for multi-family development and eighty percent (80%) property coverage for commercial, industrial, mixed use, and all other development. "Property coverage" is defined as the portion of the property supporting buildings, driveways and sidewalks, parking areas, grass and landscape areas, public access areas, 20 ORDINANCE storm water systems, and improvements required for mitigation of Niro, environmental impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). vii. Developed Area: The "developed area" shall include, but not be limited to, all contiguous existing developed land for which the system development charges have not been paid: all existing and proposed buildings, driveways and sidewalks, parking areas, grass and landscape areas, public access areas, stoini water systems, and improvements required for mitigation of environmental impacts. viii. Administrative Fees: The applicant shall pay the City's administrative costs for the preparation, processing and recording of the partial payment of the fee(s). At the time of application for special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge partial payment the applicant shall pay the administrative fee of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) for each segregation. If the same segregation is used for more than one utility's special assessment district, and/or latecomer's charge, than only one administrative fee is collected. ix. Interpretation: The Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall make the final decision on interpretation of the partial payment of system development charges. c. Segregation by Latecomer's Agreement: Segregation, if segregation is permitted by the Latecomer's Agreement, will be governed by the terms of the erre 21 ORDINANCE Latecomer's Agreement. Subsections a and b, above, shall govern segregation insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Latecomer's Agreement. TEMPORARY UTILITY CONNECTION FEES: Temporary : Stc tni.W'aterfee; Wastewater Fee_ Water Fee Connections Temporary Annual fee equal to Annual fee equal to Annual fee equal to connections to a City ten percent (10%) of ten percent (10%) of ten percent (10%) of utility system may be the current system the current system the current system granted for a one- development charge development charge development charge time, temporary, applicable to that applicable to the size applicable to the size short-term use of a portion of the of the temporary of the temporary water portion of the property. * domestic water meter(s). * property for a period meter(s). * not to exceed three (3) consecutive years Said fee shall be paid annually (nonprorated), and shall be nonrefundable, nontransferable (from one portion of the property to another) and shall not constitute a credit to the system development charge due at the time of peinianent use of the utility system. The application for temporary connection shall consist of a detailed plan and a boundary line of the proposed Ti° development service area for use in the fee determination. SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor 22 ORDINANCE Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ORD: 1411:11/15/07:ch Date of Publication: Name 23 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON lore ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF RENTON (BENSON HILL COMMUNITIES ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-06-002) WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 as amended, a petition in writing requesting that certain territory contiguous to the City of Renton, as described below, be annexed to the City of Renton, was presented and filed with the City Clerk on or about December 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, prior to the filing and circulation of the petition for annexation to the City of Renton, the petitioning owners notified the City Council of their intention to commence such proceedings as provided by law, as more particularly specified in RCW 35A.14.120; and WHEREAS, the King County Records, Elections, and Licensing Division examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexation and determined signatures represent, as Nose provided by law, in excess of ten percent (10%) of the registered voters residing in the area to be annexed on January 23, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after due notice and publication, held a public meeting and passed a resolution on March 12, 2007, accepting the 10%Notice of Intent petition and calling for an election on the question of annexing approximately 2,406 acres into the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department of the City of Renton having considered and recommended the annexing of said annexation area to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the City Council having met and adopted a resolution calling for an election on March 12, 2007; and 1 ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the City Council fixed October 1, 2007, as the time and place for a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Renton, Washington, upon the area and future zoning for it, and notice thereof having been given as provided by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said notices public hearings having been held at the time and place specified in the notices, and the Council having considered all matters in connection with the annexation and further determined that all legal requirements and procedures of the law applicable to the election method for annexation have been met; and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board having deemed the "Notice of Intention" for the 2,406-acre annexation site approved, as set forth in its closing letter issued on June 23, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Council met on July 2, 2007, and passed a resolution indicating November 6, 2007, as its preferred date for an election on the question of whether registered voters in the Benson Hill Communities favor or do not favor annexation to the City of Renton at this time; WHEREAS, on November 6, 2007, the voters in the annexation area voted to approve the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was amended for the Benson Hill Communities Annexation area as part of the City's 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, and those amendments are being adopted contemporaneously with the adoption of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, upon annexation, the residents shall accept that portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the territory, including the applicable Zoning Code relating thereto; and ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the City of Renton will complete prezoning of the non-street portions of the 2,406-acre annexation site R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, RMF, RMH, CA, CN, and CO prior to the effective date of the annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. All requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by election method, including the provisions of RCW 35A.14.020, 030, 040, 050, 090, and 100, have been met. It is further determined that the petition for annexation to the City of Renton of the property and territory described below is hereby approved and granted; the following described property being contiguous to the City limits of the City of Renton is hereby annexed to the City of Renton, effective March 1, 2008, after the approval, passage, and publication of this Ordinance; and on and after said date of March 1, 2008, the property shall constitute a part of the City of '101N"' Renton and shall be subject to all its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect; the property being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said property, approximately 2,406 acres, is located within Renton's established Potential Annexation Area and generally bounded by the Citc of Renton corporate boundary on the west and north, SE 192nd Street and S 200 Street on the south, and on the east, 108`h Avenue SE, the eastern edge of Boulevard Lane Park, the western edge of Boulevard Lane Division No. 2, and 128th Avenue SE, if extended, but including Renton Park and Charles Lindberg High School, as legally described in and shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.] and the property shall be subject to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, and as otherwise provided by law. 3 to ORDINANCE NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1419:11/27/07:sr 4 r EXHIBIT A ',goy BENSON HILL ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The lands included within the subject annexation are situated in parts of, Sections 21, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 33 in Township 23 North, and Sections 5 and 6 in Township 22 North, all in Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, said annexation area being more particularly described as lying within the following described boundary: Beginning at the southeast corner of those lands annexed to the City of Renton under Ordinance No.1961 in the Southeast quarter of said Section 21 said southeast corner also being the point of intersection of the west line of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 21 and the southwesterly right of way margin of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipe Line; Thence southeasterly along said southwesterly margin, crossing SE 160th Street, to the south line of said Southeast quarter; Thence westerly, along said south line to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 28; r Thence southerly along said east line, to the northerly right of way margin of SE 164`h Street; Thence easterly along said northerly margin to the point of intersection with the northerly extension of the easterly right of way margin of 128th Ave SE; Thence southerly along said northerly extension and the easterly margin thereof to the north line of the south half of said Northeast quarter; Thence easterly along said north line to an intersection with the east line of said Section 28; Thence southerly along said east line, to the northwest corner of"Tract A", Fairwood Park Division 7, as recorded under Volume 116 of Plats, Pages 88 through 90, said records, in said Section 27; Thence generally easterly, southerly, westerly and southerly along the various courses of said "Tract A", to a point on the northerly right of way margin of SE Petrovitsky Road (Petrovitsky Road Revision, Est. 5-28-62), in the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 27; Benson Hill Annexation 1 June 22, 2007 1 Thence southeasterly perpendicular to the centerline of said SE Petrovitsky Road, a distance of 92' to the southerly margin thereof; Thence southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly along the various courses of said southerly right of way margin, crossing 128thAvenue SE, to the northwest corner of that portion of 128thAvenue SE dedicated per deed under King County Rec. No. 20000913001594, on the westerly right of way margin of 128thAvenue SE; Thence southeasterly and southerly along said westerly right of way margin, to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 28; Thence southerly along said east line, to the southeast corner of said subdivision said southeast corner also being the northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33; Thence southerly along the east line of said subdivision, to the southeast corner thereof, said southeast corner also being the northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, to an intersection with the northeasterly right of way margin of a 100' wide Puget Sound Power & Light Transmission Line right of way; Thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right of way margin, to an intersection with , ed the northeasterly extension of the southeasterly lines of Lots 2 and 3, King County Short Plat No. 779163R, recorded under King County Rec. No. 8105060679; Thence southwesterly along said extension and the southeasterly lines of said lots, to an intersection with the northeasterly line of Lot 1, King County Short Plat No. C1077001, recorded under King County Rec. No. 7806080590; Thence northwesterly and southwesterly along the northeasterly and northwesterly lines of said Lot 1, to the most westerly corner thereof, said corner also being a point on the south line of Lot 2 of said short plat; Thence westerly along said south line, to the northeast corner of Lot 4, King County Short Plat No. 775088, recorded under King County Rec. No. 7710200755; Thence southwesterly along the east line of said Lot 4 to the southeast corner thereof, said corner also being on the northwesterly line of Boulevard Lane Division No. 2, as recorded under Volume 82 of Plats, Pages 20 and 21, said records; Thence continuing southwesterly along said northwesterly line, and southerly along the westerly line of Boulevard Lane Division 1, as recorded under Volume 80 of Plats, Pages 89 and 90, records of King County, Washington, to the westernmost southwest corner of Benson Hill Annexation 2 June 22, 2007 said plat, said southwest corner also being on a line 1073.56 feet north of and parallel with the south line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 33; Niewe Thence westerly along said parallel line, to a point 300.00 feet easterly of the west line of said subdivision, as measured perpendicular thereto, said point also being on the north line of Boulevard Lane Park, as deeded to King County under King County Rec. No. 19991011001557; Thence southeasterly along the east line of said park to the point of intersection of a line 422 feet east of and parallel with the west line of said subdivision and a line 300 feet north of and parallel with the south line of said subdivision; Thence continuing southerly along said east line, parallel with the west line of said subdivision, to a point on the northerly right of way margin of SE 192"d Street, said northerly right of way margin being 50 feet northerly of the south line of said Section 33 and the centerline of SE 192nd Street; Thence westerly along the various courses of said northerly right of way margin, crossing 120t"Avenue SE, 116 Avenue SE, 114th Place SE and 113th Way SE to its intersection with the easterly right of way margin of State Route 515, said intersection being 40 feet right of Station 270+50 per Washington State Department of Highways, Right of Way Plan SR 515 MP 3.87 to MP 5.15, Renton Vicinity: SE 196th to Can Road, Sta 257+00 to Sta 283+00, Sheet 2 of 4 Sheets in said Section 32; Thence westerly, crossing State Route 515 (108th Avenue SE), to a point 40 feet left of Station 270+40 per said Right of Way Plan; Thence southerly along the various courses of the westerly right of way margin of State Route 515 (108t Avenue NE), crossing SE 192"d Street, SE 196th Street and SE 199th Street, to the northerly right of way margin of SE 200th Street in the north west quarter of said Section 5; Thence westerly alon , the various courses of said northerly right of way margin, crossing 106thAvenue SE, 105th Avenue SE and 104th Avenue SE, to its intersection with the existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3885; Thence northerly, easterly and westerly along the various courses of the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. 3885 & 3109 to the point where said existing limits as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3109 leaves the section line common to Sections 5 & 6 and enters said Section 6; Thence northerly along said common section line to its intersection with the existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3268; Benson Hill Annexation 3 June 22, 2007 Thence generally northerly and easterly along the various courses of the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. (in order from south , to north) 3268, 5205, 5041, 3268, 4069, 1743, 4476, 1971, 3864, 1971, 5236, 1971, 3742, 1971, 3108, 1909, 5208, 3730, 2224, 1871 and 1961 to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT the north 100 feet of the west 230 feet of the South half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, previously annexed to the City of Renton under Ordinance No. 3432. TOGETHER WITH the following: That portion of Lot 3, King County Short Plat 779163R recorded under King County Rec. No. 8105060679, within the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33, if any; and Those portions of the Northeast quarter of said Section 6 and the Northwest quarter of said Section 5, lying southerly, westerly, southerly and westerly of existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. (in order from north to south): 3268, 3751, and 3109, and lying northerly of the northerly right of way margin of S. 200th Street; and That portion of the Northwest quarter of said Section 5, lying northerly of the northerly right of way margin of S. 200th Street, westerly and southerly of existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No.3885, and easterly of , existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3109. Benson Hill Annexation 4 June 22, 2007 < ii;T , %áeit�.p s: , \--.A ♦,- a la_� zy., w. I , �: .yiny ♦ ♦♦o♦♦ ♦�• ♦it gyp„=i_ I a 2 t •::Later ■=al ivn= ► a yam• ♦yiz :' •• xixr„al 'iiiL•1 `[A� '�':�J.�ttimi• ♦♦A= %✓♦ 3V,1 '' I!,i♦►i' \\s. wren aIiFLley Ct:■ _�P=!Z..q i/� M• i;�""'#.11)4111t#:%' i.41%.. ` `♦i`...�ii�i`♦iO,4 ,0. • l.„ �!f llii 11i�:1. t milli \%We tiw/,' /�♦.IS fir♦0•,.n■ ;,:,;::;;,4%;;;;♦2n♦ nU45 411104 /...�..1• -1 r sw z:t st l tit■C'■■►ice malw .v.:I►�• ♦t♦i`�Din=�:■e' F4,4?• +',tt is.,..... , V *F!�n s ■♦• ♦y iia �..___,_'♦♦.:ii :�♦.�•ii 3fl7i ♦♦•♦ p♦ '�J , I¢..rl■: S• ■� \ im aI IIIj !1IiIlli• nl G, �_ ♦. '• 7rc i.., I ' „ _ 'C - ♦Si♦G�taiiiii.•�,Wdi•.iii:iy:"'tiny!/. Iif:JwCy� .i rill" 11 1.-.^�.r� ♦�! x•_4nr..1 Q♦..�!. it E3 EL . *�. �Iimelltl�''g�< • ! IIE?IJ:'ill: N' raF . a� -� •�•4< ♦it* �y♦ SW 27th St w w Cr�5]h two,fi..- g9 r■i1', 111St• !!$II! i?1i9� -i \I:IlJJti15�■p- 1■ = •, ;;.•,l,..� ,.c r ■.... l q "` I ,1 AT\.1�:.• .-"„1x11....■.......1... .••r.,♦..., - nt� ♦�e♦.4�. �� ! �w.��.n.n� �-i■ ll ��•��•Qnnn11►7.�ie3t;.a�.Eux.S��ca.e:,y�.�- !. • • i.._� ♦♦♦�♦♦.7 �e � r:j�e'►'m.■ %,1�� �•�♦.o_q♦♦per♦•1111 s:�_►/��#`a II--- a, 1q.I a •�t l . ..ii •i..d .0 ■4.vf '•'>:■..`', E-.iS. ►::•.:•♦ r'Q •101'♦♦.■ =°A•. •• • w .iii.■x�,..■ :- :- u.m GLS: ••p■�IJ♦ ♦♦a. 1�1 O11 C, ■�� �j■��_ E• -►�2•y0•Il l a ii r' tjf o ■ a .;,...a31/1.,5411521.81-►i •■p■ ■yam. Ilnm� !.ne.,il Ari;1:!■�H■ n:MU CMS ENtYI'i�r hi:.cP,J.uJ,:J: 9.ai tl �r- 1 : �-rd,I„41,411 1s-'.55 Era 11=1"11.•' 11��m qr. 1i t11:■i a a.'-''-"en•n•■ Im-4 �0 1�!u•rear 3 HH tri�•�: 1. ♦i..I. .. •�� .eaJsauu. ��nnliz,1 0'J� I is N3 Ma: 1.:•: Gill 11: ♦ i i-L ..i!• 4N .�� Phi a a�`•,•IIIm-�i - -1■3 .^ ` N= • -r N ■H •♦♦i♦♦vs iQ.'� - -� 11 maim _ ,�-Hit��_ ■ L♦•��i Ii■�� S'y�.uu,ia■ •I�■ im -Ai �w L:mu•.. -.:a 1 ♦i♦iy♦ :/aLS s nnIs N:::►P 1 D t. 4.1141 — ii�ii=OPE 14► a IS' ' tread st Y ►,11�'" :_'._.i ,.,1 fit' ���.. ■ ♦I� 1)41.31"6.1 � �9•1R i�W�il� S•..•I:II.'.911 , .%a: IC_ ,I.I.,In11111f 1,I"7 •�1�f\ ���ndR O1.1 �' JtJ`.•1 _ Zu •Nh@.l:" R:fu.131 nil j'- . 2 a :$cr_'ay,� ;�_ •.1.1111nm ■//O11I _ ..■-■ ■ ;L 12 ■:i.1.11 m. T� fl r�_ /1 is ■111117111R � 1'1`�I%•�"1. -WAI IIi1�Iul`ru it 11 " a ■\.� PeV�':k1 Rd:3 I.NI�1■� /11 - 1M1r N/` S■4trt S �C VWVIII ill , Una: Fins trim id wi Gig r_i- l "'t .♦ \�_ - - jj I J ■v:. R _ [I' T` ..i. E�:�:111 ' -t::-♦`t:� -fes 'i WI .-yr ry i- :ill.is�,al ff-f8-- /"1UL r .� �•st 1'1 j'1 -- �� .��I ;VAIN M6 CI_Slali�jia :.� c. r s J I - dir47 f -H1 - ` aua:a:. 01O1�=�1O 7 ■PI"aflffhJ %�i'i�� n■ 45 I 1� ■ .11101//IIID�. •■ a..N_ .,,.,1� - MI 1:111:5:12. U n■r Frill �ld �3WO-13r"iii rim,Val Att :Z y(-jig' Il di; �I =�_:111,:, 111 -� ■� Lig 1111:i+/1 -�■� 111111Wn: .ciJ ry gin n. 4....%n= S•ir.nnn 11S; ` \11.11. �1� .■. �n 1• • ••-�r woo";�' ■11:.11 C11CIIIt: T �i ,�- N"+44,o. a r m4�♦♦�= r =1 x xeA11•:4. it ri ■.• .7 is i ■■ • � o____L__� �L7�►.♦1 ■®rL" bar.Sn..ni���� fl>•if■�f>•� �'?•�� sew:: x� __ r r r13 2 ii.7 iir 'L 4014741•0414 _ .- 1 xni •z= Inn x► o■:ogiti immtme: 11■1t�.9G111 1 14.4:41.174,11.A . .x. n.■r i 1.....1 111 ( L := ....,t�l�� 111:1,■ O n11S.Z 11,sot • ; . :. ..i TI:C r' Ms's,1: % l&I1• 4 L=.--.1. unnt- rIWiL!1Idmi1iI ' li3 :� El �•j lee%lyst �� g ■ -■ a•-.•.y , win .J 1111EmvIr I g r ilk(l ik "v. ■�Ni ( ICI a !1 .ni��'i-Ir L/ ■ .:• �N :x.xr • as I '� I i�y mg n"Mos ca X xxg4 .t_ i 7.�\ . . ern = ! w raZ 1 1/111/1111 ■>• � 1 .x. s'i. ■�.. � �'p, . w�l mum. T 'r11 1 EMI 1 1 -i iit it....,: RT aa 'ii st 'ri�:a'2��O. imam Za..�►♦ ♦ =S EMI• II■■ ■■ ■ eni in■FJ RIM:_• ♦ .�♦in3.4.11a� � Illori-- MI E1 a'.�_'■ x111■ =;.. ■� 6 h.,7 1;iifl� ire�Um4?'I / 0. 111 \•--- • E Z." j�•/ •i Ii r:Yr,YV ■1/ ♦I M.3 Cz b:2 ZZ r: ing4■...ylllll�miztari � • I 1 11:� II�1��..F. f . =:■• ._ _ _ _ �� Him z- ■ ....r=[/ I. .� �i��111f' r! ii • II ‘141,74441.1I.is n o l!ing c,� ■i:4 v I re' �1'1 ..1.3",' ♦1■: ■11■91- - `+I.t Mak a. n.•.♦ r Mei Min& - •J -'/� eti tet♦ Q`•. m qv °-z a I z ♦���e i_ZZS 9 m1 /:n 1 n1► Amen d8 III: `roposed Benson Hill Annexation Area S' — v7-1-)---r-04. Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Annexation Boundary ♦(gt ♦ Alex Ptetsch,Administrator City Limits ,7,.\, \, C E ['easel \NTct 14June?007 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4260, REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, CHANGING TILE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (HIGHLANDS STUDY AREA) FROM RESIDENTIAL- 10 DU/AC (R-10) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RM-F), FILE NO. LUA-06-128 (CPA 2006-M-6). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described in Attachments A and B has heretofore been zoned as Residential- 10 du/ac; 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 September 20, 2006, 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; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5285 on May 14, 2007, which changed the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for these properties from Residential Medium Density(RMD) to Residential Multi-Family (RMF); and ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the RM-F zoning designation is consistent with the RMF land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan; 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 Multi-Family as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhoods and 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 Attachments "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Highlands Study Area). SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1409:11/14/07:ch cpaord-zoning.doc 2 ( ( („. . 1 ,,,,s1-V--ri __-____z___//' — — :'*- -,.\ v f.:oh, — J� Jones Ave. NE p, N �� �— Ir [K�nnewick 1Kennew�ck. incain i �' = CD c^ �``— // �-47 onterey ��Monterey T �r'J Moly ere a '� /--- f_lea: - _72_,,-,-2_-�j COO '°m — �/ �'�£ Aberdeen Ave-NE Aberdeen Ave. NE • ' • Aberdeen Ave. NE: o C -- =::—.._-------- Aberdeen r'ir �_, �,7"Jo t?laine Av t --Blaine 'Ave. 'NE i lv` c 1 L.�_ ' `r I' ; s- GJj 8 comas . .. 1 .:. • - 2, i ,.4a o- v o fDa ton •.• I Y Daytorn CD N %y° ;' j" '-_ ,Dayton �". ;^ t-, ,4 `C ....... -t monGS•A e .tea .Ni - = tf°i 4 e.-I -- '- :- ED r / fi f} Edmonds Ave:NE i 1( __ CD ���U12 � / \. rn _ d 71 z Z• z am ,m rr� r`1 QNB_ < f�� 42 Cienwoo j p t ,c L-_ I ( ,---Farringto -. ._- . L r o- Harrin tor, Ave. — / T N T-- T' 1 I 9 /9� Horringt n. n G -- s 1 i y — —. �'• orPf L :5:: : , !/ i7 I JI�T xa r }N_4d - . - Kirklantl--Ave ,\ I uosua;}ar \� l._°5iNii r l JN 'any puol Ind{ , . Kirklo <'''S'4.2 b . 'any poo»,u1-JJJr —'�_ Pre/ \��o°� ---J/ `r/ �� \2 O 'any ao:uo,N I m .any: "j"Y1 H J1 •--j I1 1Monroe Ave z m 4 rn r —.N ANtwiart ,\ Olymp AV .-NC J s I NE. ':, `D o F21 ah �pa7— - gd nd : '--.,--e: '--.,--e:.:. - a-1,91d I s Pierce 'I Nid4�~ I --. �S ` - -Q _ o al I m rn Srtj�:N a Vaoad Queen Ii�- O rz cn j (� a- ani pvoupN ^ �� ween ; he . 06,...n. r— 3N : yuaano JI� - andaz N a' ti N /�-U LfSi-j1:11_,::,_________LyLnP'.,Au° 1's ,��� , _f� te'r'TaS rr �`-nShelton Avetf AvNE Z; a,- mO "Y -U0A. oU R NE c� It Untcn Ave NE L ' Union Avi HIGHLANDS REZONE REZONE FROM R-10 TO RMF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Attachment B The North five acres of the West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington; EXCEPT roads. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Nome ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2007 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAPS AND DATA IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton has heretofore adopted and filed a "Comprehensive Plan" (enacted by Ordinances 5099 and 5100) and the City Council of Renton has implemented and amended said "Comprehensive Plan" from time to time, together with the adoption of various codes, reports and records; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heretofore fully recommended to the City Council, from time to time, certain amendments to the City's "Comprehensive Plan": and WHEREAS, the City of Renton, pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, has been required to review its "Comprehensive Plan"; and WHEREAS, the City held public hearings on July 25, 2007, and August 1, 2007, before the City of Renton Planning Commission and on October 1, 2007, before the City Council on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made certain findings and recommendations to the City Council, including implementing policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly determined after due consideration of the testimony and evidence before it that it is advisable and appropriate to amend and modify the City's "Comprehensive Plan" and WHEREAS, such modification and elements of the "Comprehensive Plan" being in the best interest for the public benefit; 1 0 ORDINANCE NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, *44010 WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The "Comprehensive Plan," maps, data and reports in support of the "Comprehensive Plan" are hereby modified, amended and adopted as said "Comprehensive Plan" consisting of the following elements: Vision, Capital Facilities, Land Use and Land Use Map, and Transportation as shown on Attachments A, B, C, D and E and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION III. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes on said City's "Comprehensive Plan" and the maps in conjunction therewith to evidence the aforementioned live amendments. "" SECTION IV. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file this ordinance as provided by law, and a complete copy of said document likewise being on file with the office of the City Clerk of the City of Renton. SECTION V. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of . 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. 2 1 ORDINANCE NO. New Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1412:11/16/07:ch r 3 ATTACHMENT A 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 of the 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 Center, and strive for development that is more intense than typical "suburban" prototypes. r � ATTACHMENT B GROWTH PROJECTIONS The Puget Sound Regional Council population and employment forecast growth for the City over the twenty-one-year interval from 2001 to 2022 is an increase of 9,723 households, and 33,600 jobs_ Growth targets adopted by the Growth Management Planning Council anticipate 6,198 households and 27,597 jobs. Both forecast growth and targets are well within the City's estimated land capacity of 11,261 units and 32,240 jobs established through the Buildable Lands requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA). Renton is planning for its regional share of forecast growth over the next 20 years at the high end of the range, and the adopted target at the low end of the range. In the first 9 years of growth management actual growth in Renton exceeded targets,but was within the range predicted by the forecast growth assumptions. With external factors, including the regional economy, state/federal transportation funding and the GMA regulatory environment remaining constant or improving, Renton's growth is anticipated to continue over the next 6 year planning cycle. The following chart summarizes Renton's forecast growth, targets and land use capacity. City of Adjustment Reflecting Estimated Growth 2007-2012 Capital Renton Growth,Annexation, and Per Year Facilities Plan Land Use Changes up to (for the 16 years Estimates For City of 2006 Renton remaining in the target) Forecast 9,723 units None 463 units 2,778 units growth 33,600 jobs 1,600 jobs 9,600 jobs 2001-2022 22,266 (21 yrs) population Growth 6,198 units 2,257 units 141 units 846 units Targets 27,597 jobs 24,797 jobs 1,505 jobs 9300 jobs 2022 14,194 population Capacity 11,261 units 12,192 units NA NA established 32,240 jobs 28,589 jobs by Buildable Lands 25,788 2006-2022 population Dr the purpose of developing a six-year capital facilities plan for the period from 2007 through 2012, an estimate was made as to the amount of the remaining 21-year growth to be realized during the six-year Capital Facilities Element planning cycle. After reviewing the projections and the underlying assumptions, it was deteiiuined that for planning 11I-5 ATTACHMENT B purposes, the most prudent course was to assume a unifoini allocation of the forecast growth and targets over the 21- year period, rather than trying to predict year by year economic cycles. Renton's growth over the first years of growth management is occurring more rapidly than originally forecast. The estimate for 2001 was 48,456 persons however the actual population by April 1, 2001 was 51,140, exceeding forecast ,0101 growth by 2,684 persons housed in 1,177 housing units over a 6 year period(196 units per year). By April 1, 2004, the City population was 55,360, representing an increase of another 4,220 residents and an estimated 1, 850 units. The number of units realized between 2002 and 2004 exceeds the forecast projection of 1,389 units by 461 units (153 units per year). Some of this development can be explained by new housing developed in areas annexing to the City. However, the increase exceeds the proportional share of housing target and forecast growth assigned to this annexation area and assumed by the City upon annexation. For the purposes of the next phase of the planning cycle, the 2007 to 2012 six-year Capital Facilities Plan, Renton will continue plan for the next six-year increment of forecast growth assuming an increase of 2,778 units and 9,600 jobs. Forecast growth represents the upper end of expected growth,while the target of 846 units and 9,300 jobs represented the minimum amount of growth expected for this period. The City's population in the year 2012 is forecast as 61,694 persons. To be sure, growth will not occur precisely as projected over the next six-year or the 21-year period. Recognizing this fact, the Capital Facilities Plan should be updated at least biennially. In this way local governments have the opportunity to re-evaluate their forecasts in light of the actual growth experienced, revise their forecasts for the next six years if necessary, and adjust the number and timing of capital facilities that would be needed during the ensuing six-year period. The City perfoiioied such a review of the Capital Facilities Plan in 2004 and determined that there was not a need to adjust the growth forecast or the number and timing of capital facilities. This conclusion was based on a finding that although actual growth was higher than forecast, the level of service standards were being maintained. Subsequent reviews may result in revisions to the growth projections and the number and timing of capital facilities if actual growth continues to exceed the forecast growth As stated in Policy CFP-1, this Capital Facilities Plan is anticipated to be updated regularly as part of the city's budget process, thereby ensuring that the Plan reflects the most current actual statistics related to growth in Renton, and that capital facilities are slated for implementation in accordance with both the level of service standards and the city's concurrency policy. It is anticipated that the City will fully implement this policy(CFP-1) in the annual budget process. vosel I1I-6 ATTACHMENT B CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN POLICIES �licy CFP-1. The Capital Facilities Plan should be updated on a regular basis as part of the city's budget process, and such update may include adjustments to growth projections for the ensuing six years, to level of service standards, to the list of needed facilities, or to anticipated funding sources. For the purpose of capital facilities planning,plan for forecast growth at the high end of the projected range and targeted growth as a minimum. Policy CFP-2. Level of service standards should be maintained at the current or at a greater level of service for existing facilities within the City of Renton, which the City has control over. Policy CFP-3. Adequate public capital facilities should be in place concurrent with development. Concurrent with development shall mean the existence of adequate facilities, strategies, or services when development occurs or the existence of a financial commitment to provide adequate facilities, strategies, or services within six years of when development occurs. Policy CFP-4. No deterioration of existing levels of service that the City of Renton has control over should occur due to growth, consistent with Policy CFP-3. Policy CFP-5. Funding for new, improved, or expanded public facilities or services should come from a mix of sources in order to distribute the cost of such facilities or services according to use,need, and adopted goals and policies. Policy CFP-6. Evaluate levying impact fees on development for municipal services and/or school district services upon the request of each school district within the City limits, if a compelling need is established through means such as presentation of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan and demonstration that such facilities are needed to accommodate projected growth and equitably distributed throughout the district. 141.Policv CFP-7 Adopt by reference the Kent School District#415 Capital Facilities Plan 2006-2007 -2011-2012 and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan Policy CFP-8 Adopt by reference the Issaquah School District#411 Capital Facilities Plan 2006-2012 and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan (See the Public Facilities and Annexation Sections of the Land Use Element, the Parks, Recreation Trails and Open Space Element, the Utilities Element, and the Transportation Elements for policies related to this Capital Facilities Plan.) I11-7 ATTACHMENT B TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN —2007- 2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 on the following pages indicate the degree to which Renton's transportation system is integrally linked to the regional transportation system. The first exhibit is of the existing street and highway system; the second depicts traffic flows on that system in 2002; and, the third depicts daily traffic volumes forecasted for 2022. In Renton perhaps more than in any other jurisdiction in the Puget Sound area, actions relating to the transportation system have local and regional implications. Level of Service Background In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton has adopted a LOS policy in that emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. The LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision-makers for the region must provide altematives to SOV travel. III-8 1 ATTACHMENT B Fig. 7-1 Existing Street/Highway System w Existing Street/Highway System _ ), I Legend _ __- r� + ° " + -' Transportation s; +�\� r\, F^T°� City Limit 1 - _��_,..e . , .l''l , I 4 ' Renton \� 1 Plan '''''...Y'',-;:,,/ ( I�4.j i yIcastle Planning Area _,, I J e7 ;a it �` / 1 =:_t}'- .r:=�lil,W:: r 4: 4 r,:.`fir-_ --`;. �./---i r- 'Y it / �. � 7' \,_;,---,1' -f � .s#e ;'ashtn un \c�: I -o------- - I 1 rI� 1„__1_17 S w1► A\ ws �T r- 1 '1 -`_ ,'' �lI - -� I 1�''���Th`� � -k iI -' � r, .I (r \,�Ty �i\ ,LI'''''----- --i- 4 I—J1-1—J I I�' :� ) w e. -. ,{ �`L JC- :4 1 I\l---, ,Ti_ —_\I .rQzI=_ 1• fr1JI 14 1 - I r`-- _"!-_� t_ i' J Y-y—\- _-, — ri v� !i I'I I n I i__I I i_ L., D .f — _ �. r; s 2ndls( `, '� Renton r ; ; I -; -,- -'1 I .I.:'-_--.- 1 J�: `.\ i \',\ =ytaat Y---- j/ rJ {:'- ,,y: '`-;_` , I �- _ C fi'F- ' � Jri: 1 I ti )j,} 1 I • isr''-j1 til_ 1 _,/ ,`'_:,--_-_--1r� it �' �I \.1P':. �`,1 I -- I- -Lf_\ ¢1 '� `i>;. ` `� � - ) 3--- -----____ `i i ,li I t —gUZ�_ r,,',>,-',,, .-1,=.'‘,- is ;--7.J T\` - ( TT m I ''� es' SW 27th S{ _ t _:i_r 1A `r1 _ 'S I I Lai l_:= '--` ` L`_ '� 1 - I ' (. , � df _� �'I I i 7 \ J F H Tukwila- sk _LN_ 1 ! }, ' �rr,r- �R. -6'11 ( \ PetroHtrky Si I i=.12-_ --'----- i t_ '---,1- L _ -� ? IOr ,,// I- / { 43fd 'r v 1—�/ �Tr / i .- _ -7_. 1--+ 11 I r. .�—_ , �` __`ii I I 1 ( I _I I.._ }42nd St:� _I I �Fw,+ ({? 1_. t lc_ I '1 } l , 1 I 1 y E r ,y7 as ,.J( I. ) `k-, , ;,,;,:c-.-.1.1h4tN$ --ice :) ,7I le--nt 1-2_,j,i_ ,_,'- �r 111-9 A ATTACHMENT B Figure 7-2 Traffic Flow Map Noisy 1 �� ; Mi ,- Sern • x� NORTH ::141043.61:::t: 'VIM• ,. :•-.g...-:-. t 1 - - - — 9 ",-'..- a+ . 9 ylIcKa. '''F,.c),, s't,. .„::.!:,.•...1: V .'' . :'Ng .. allft.- .:,. .1:-.. :.:: :: '.41g)3 . ' AV. 4:111k1k ...-, -. -.: • . - CID C. Si „,, , ,..„- :..5,:.-...,„:,:„..0,-,i,.#:_.,-,.-.i:,„:,--,ili,?..,.,.....-11,..5,4 - c) ___%:).5.,7:Ti.:,,, ,-,..„..,., :,,,,„-„,,,e„.... .c„,, ,,,,p ... , f +; Wl 0-y �� ���® ,� s 8NA e'°* • z iICITY OF -R'14:70:-; ENTON .: # m ;©®�„,;.„. 2002 dp � '> f `.. TRAFFIC FLOW MAP wj .>.: 0[PARTU(NT Of PLAN N1NC/EOkOP+C/INJW:NOknS • .', 0 S �.” TRANSPCRTAPCN SYSTEMS WV), o A. X eti OPERATIONS SECTION • _ j .1. a EYAUPLE AAS1;6 ® J- op o ' •h• y rt,tk 30 SCAIC t”- t00ppp Ktu:,LLS 40 50 6a 41R., fkt '� •-, : •IN TMp1SANOS Cf KMCIES .'t • .Et D ECRONAl AKPACE DAr.Y TRAFTIC om �.. A • i ','', NOTE WTERSTATE 105 ANO STATE Rp1TE tC) d . • (SOUTH of 1-105)ARE 51fpWN AT HAIL SCALE. I-405 ' - R Q 4 A CD 4Z' © .:.:9;:i... ''''' e,s', _,,,,,,:. ,, NI 1 *F All ' a ',.s 'Z' , ,, „ ly ®ig OE ''' ...t..:- .: ."'.•'''', Y'V.y © t � �� tt NOmA CITY OF RENTON 2002- TRAFFIC ROW YAP yila C) 'M' 474D ° X'''':. 111.731111111119:=M NilliOf III-I 1 , ) ..„) 1. �{�� � _,, I c •,/ ,, �JI 3s aAV 4!841 I _.—..I_f, Lg �:>'' i C ;i �i9 F7 a_ El H x(xx, 1 sAV u 1 1 _ IIT I(��r , j �\ ..�-_'Ty ;$�, -_ I 1 3 :, 1 ✓rte i� `� v] �-- r^-- �� :.tom dr�'- :aV_cp -/ t/// -- N ^c7 r, vi `� ))-"-L \:(711---i .,�tiii �r es o- 1 �j� L. i-� r,/,)1-7 % l r,-11__ O on eco _-- I l c y r ‘��I-1( N!-� ` /.\.\\ i N oaf- G,G O ) L i ,l vro G M w �, \� ...'s"I �l —If-----71 a��rts�Ria4• i,.luo '.---),,,,....-07)..F- \_ -k...�`� 1, �, >� I_ ;' c� ^��I I t cel Yt`-.,."�^�;e.�, ----'-------t-71.-;-_-_1'. 1j .n4:0;- :x'ti,n'tIT r-. l�`� r --- (� •t.,{;�v , IN g s a I.TI ;i.'hti''' <'r',� r•="'?i"��. C. I }s II _ �(,�' _ r .(cg. _ �� 1�—+I i. � `,/�' �-, jlE s,:,-;, ,:_ ^�+<�ftKmL A y ,.�--_----�:.,. '' g 1-Tl1E,t,lro��,a,`�' _ _ § ' r_ -/ 47 a WO'a 1 �� ' 4 •-•� s, \ Ay>tssd P: _ r ^ �_ L f //C�� ,,nomf �i�IMCrr.,a��g(. �> _ �'0 ' r ?i r r '� Co.dl��-- R 8-�-� �� JUo.: Jam' ",..„....$)— ` �' _ , 1�1 :.. „E�Pe� rs t fi �S+$ �`1'4 -! '/ t• 3 r J \ 'aJ4. MI' '�"' ��� � ,� `'��. - ~ _e I k',; 'si r' ,Jrr' ,r, s rs F 1 f/�= o'd'' G 5 t, ly I - I� N `a(15i -Ai•Fl,sp"i1;ems.?,.i't;',-M•l i.-, �,0,:m"+w,r•pan E y.,,•• i-f .';l •:"%T''f � ��W t 5.5(Nl — �- 'C� `-1-7' , l 'I `n O z�', �} ,�..py( Y a •1 r�',{:a,. '`i.S,s.P.4,-- �eR k,.f it ,.:7-' I T - J—_,.--,,'%„ , _ N 824 3 A 'w.,F • +1�5 r yi'rfv '7W;9 tisn' r":K':,�j,„. .-rte'- - _-- i•'" ', 0,2' oo -r�--�\ - ` � ,. ,101T ', 404 M ,iso -,rk ; _ — -u psi r: _ •41 ' , = g:Y f j ;y.-{r, S44.;.-.. `ca i N„(V-4 'Pvie 4,- 71 J' I �:. u5 s.4 to, 14 a -0.„l ��y.W. •,f let a� _&14 -- —_ "-L� „ 1-.. ..u,LJ..s`•'V1: t ;`?d„"e '�-� - ' ,OC ..._,_._-_..,.r.. mJ„ly>r..J' u41.-QJT:2'gS,fl�., "nS°.g:� C. ,," i (' �'(�' II- G.NOa) 210 _w �� ': 'F .'IS•'4iFw 're;'2L"4T.f S!_Q.;�t3� - ` i :.md_ .I�j-"— �! I S ?moi 1 —_ 2A� Q(K(.0 d r,,..,$;: h;. :r Ssi e Atte II r M Ir j 7v` ■ J r _ /: .''"p�{''*r:'k ili,, ,,._7` t,,,.;.,)',, -i-=',+-„,ti4'�' Re,� J �-- ` vi._DG ,, .vii �/�. „r,s"'1.5.':. ,,stt';•e a,"'af/y 4-41,r.s /, I( i ..._ M1;„,),K r i ._ 'E a',h 'sr..;• _',e• r,,�'e'�',,g,v,k3; y z w,,:,y'8',, r\ I 1 ,°/ z,. ,\ n 3 iz� � 8'14 w' t't,�4 01,19r i 'VVirr/ '� I �I-1I T� I - / - r',2,e(o! 1 JI eny al psaX ;:F;I:k ni a�< .P;r„%'".'$,.::: I;J�s^t;.,_F...y I 1 Y— /I �/ �f•� _- •I CZE'. .�:,, -�,..ti'iei'0”e�'lu ryF�r'., c, �,_°..,s. „/� :)s.x= ,_i,' sa;�',sz:.+�'t%��=did%"",;^itC�"� -r_ �'�r, ...„, r / r I 'fir , r g l4 � ) \ \ 4T _A 'Ily xr 5i ✓ va 1 y � . - - - s ( � . TI — / 1 t/.I' irr a a qa �r- r -r - / <h 7 Ii) _—_' �s .j I _ L Z :_;;I L`• `�� L— ,.�1 — jai i i i, � ,/▪ / _ - -. _ % X11-4,.._r-, -`-,/I lNA'', ,.r I / I, ► -- �- \\ i I 1 I 'mom---(4 \ \,`l'., U i ' H a ATTACHMENT B The LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV,non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several 'bjectives: iolose • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally linked, locally oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Meet requirements of the Growth Management Act; • Meet the requirements of the Countywide Planning Policies Level of Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide flexibility for Renton to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS standards by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures assist in meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. The Level of Service Standard Methodology The following table demonstrates how the LOS policy is applied. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been calculated for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30-minute travel distance for SOV, HOV and Transit as follows: Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOY HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard XX miles XX miles 2 times X miles=XX XX City-wide Level of Service Standard (Years 2002 and 2022) ,he 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOY 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. Therefore, SOV improvements will need to he implemented to raise the SOV equivalent or a combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the LOS standard. Renton's Transportation Improvement Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub-Elements have been tested against the above LOS standard to assure that the Plan meets the year 2022 standard. City-wide Level of Service Index (Tear2002): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* *Rounded NOTE: A LOS index of 42 has been determined for the year 2002 by the new calibrated(2002-2022) transportation model that reflects 2002 and 2022 land use data. The 2002 LOS index of 42 is shown above, and is the basis for the 2022 LOS standard. III-13 ATTACHMENT B City-wide Level of Service Standard(Year 2022): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard 15 miles 17 miles 10 miles 42 The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan,—2007-2012 The transportation 6-year facilities plan is based on achieving the desired level of service by the year 2022 through an annual program of consistent and necessary improvements and strategies. Additionally, the plan includes projects such as bridge inspections, street overlay programs, traffic signal maintenance, and safety improvements that are needed as part of the City's annual work program. Projects that promote economic development also are included, as encouraged by the GMA. See Figure 7-4 on the following page for the latest adopted 6-year plan. The first step in developing the 6-year funding plan was to establish a 20-year plan that included arterial, HOV and transit components. This effort resulted in a planning level cost estimate of$134 million. The cost for arterials and HOV are total costs (or Renton's share of the cost of joint projects with WSDOT and local jurisdictions). The transit costs include only the local match for local feeder system improvements, park and ride lots, signal priority and transit amenities. Having established a 20-year funding level of$134 million, an annual funding level of$6.7 million was established. With this funding level, it is reasonably certain that the desired level of service will be maintained over the intervening years as long as the facilities funded each year are consistent with the 20-year plan and transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously emphasized. The funding source projections in Figure 7.5 are based upon the assumption that: gas tax revenue would continue at *id no less than $0.35 million per year; that grant funding would be maintained at $3.90 million per year; business license fees would continue at $1.88 million per year based on the current 85% of the annual revenue generated from this fee that is dedicated to fund transportation improvements; and that$0.57 million per year from mitigation fees would be maintained. Based on forecasts of total new vehicle trips from development, a mitigation fee of$75 per trip has been established. Developers are required to implement site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent facility impacts are mitigated, as well as paying their required fees. III-14 i a ATTACHMENT B Fig.7-4 -2007-2012 Six-Year TIP Total Project Costs CITY OF RENTON PLANNING I BUILDING I PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2007-2012 SIX-YEAR TIP Total Project Costs Previous Six-Year Total TIP Project Title Costs 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Penod Total Cost I Street Overlay Program 1359,326 485,000 485,000 485.000 485,000 485,000 485,000 2,910,000 4,269,326 2 Intersection Safety&Mobility 0 250,000 250,000 0 250,000 250,000 250.000 1,250.000 1,250.000 3 SW 2781 S6Strander By Connect 5,501.001 6,222,000 5,816,000 10,000 1,096,600 22,576,000 6,067,700 41,788.300 47,289.301 4 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 532,862 102,000 230.000 320,000 4,050,000 1,770,000 3,280,000 9,752,000 10.284.862 s Renton Urban Shuttle{RUSH) 6.351 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 36,361 6 Transit Program 34,714 30.000 18,000_ 18,000'_ 18.000 18,000 18,000 120,000 154,714 7 Rainier Av Corridor Study/Improv. 302,813 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5.000 0 35,000 337,913 e Rainier Av-S 4th PI to S 2nd 597,000 1,220,000 698,000 3,795,000 0 0 0 5,713,000 6.310,000 9 Hardie Av SW Transit/Multi-modal _ 1,168.521 4.228,479 8,290,000 1,650,000 0 0 0 14.168,479 15,337000 10 Walkway Program 749,032 350,000_ 250,000 250.000 250.000 250,000 250,000 1,600,000 2,349,032 II Rainier Av•SW 7th to 4th PI 1,160,655 2,629,000 1,650,000 1925,000 5,925,000 0 0 8,129,000 9.289.655 _12 Ripley Lane 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 12 S Lake Wash.Roadway Improv. 12,837,714 12,353,700 0 0 0 0 0 12,353,700 25,191,414 14 Garden Av N Widening 0 1,000,000_ 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1s South Renton Protect 647,580 75.000 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 722,580 16 1-405 Improvements In Renton 98.385 30,000 30,000 30,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 120,000 218,385 17 Project Development7Predesl5n 322.592 225,000 225.000 225,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,275,000 1,597,592 1e NE 4th S0Hoquiam Av NE 390,400 9,600 0 0 0 0 0 9.600 400.000 1s Arterial Circulation Program 260.680 200,000 200,000 200,000 200.000 250.000 250.000 1,300.000 1,560,680 20 Bridge Inspection&Repair 254.581 105.000 75.000 55,000 50.000 55,000 50,000 390,000 654,581 21 May Creek Bridge Replacement 120,000 550.000 160,000 5.000 0 0 0 715,000 835,000 22 Loop Replacement Program 40,105 15.000 15.000 15.000 20.000 20.000 20,000 105,000 145,105 23 Sign Replacement Program 11,255 5.000 5,000 5.000, 7,500 7,500 7,500 37,500 48,755 24 Pole Program 37,954 20,000 20,000 20,000 25.000 25.000 25,000 135,000 172,954 01 Sound Transit NOV Direct Access 71.910 0 0 4,000 4,000 4.000 0 12.000 83.910 2e Traffic Safety Program 146,734 25.000 20,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 185,000 331,734 n Traffic Efficiency Program 344.924 55,000, 50,000 50.000 30.000 30,000 30,000 245,000 509,924 2e CBD Bike&Pad.Connections 131,544 50,000 50,000, 50,000 50,000' 50,000 50.000 300,000 431,544 29 S 3rd St and Shattuck Av 45000 255,000 0 0 0 0 0 255,000 300.000 Jo School Zone Sign Upgrades 103,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 200.000 300.000 s1 Arterial Rehab-Prog. 435,000 240,000 360,000 760,000 200,000 200,003 200,000, 1,960,000 2,395,000 12 Duvall Ave NE 2.668200 1,700,000 600,000 01 0' 0 0 2,300600 4.968200 33 RR Crossing Safety Prof/. 5.240 5,000 10.000 0 0 0 10.000 25,000 30,240 34 TOM Program 108,475 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55.000 55,000 330,000 438.475 ss !Trans Concurrency 40,000 20,000 40,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 10,000 120.000 180,000 as Missing Links Program 30,380 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30.000 30,000 180,000, _ 210,380 17 GIS Needs Assessment 41,700 35,000 20,000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 135,000 176,700 i 34 Grady Wy Corridor Study 83,421 50,000 50,000 50,000 230.000 1.810,000 1020,000 3,210000 3.273,421 39 Bicycle Route Dev.Program 30,701 120,000 18,000 18,000 110,000_ 80,000 80,000 426,000 456,701 CO take Wash.By-Park to Coulon Pk 323,138 0 0 0 84,600 141.600 0 226,1001 549,238 Cr Environmental Monitoring 159.635 75.000 50,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 245.000 404,535 42 Trans-Valley&Soos Creek Corr. 12.539 5.000 5,000 5,000' 0 0' 0 15.000 27539 49 W560T Coordination Program 23.600 15,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 10.000' 10,000 75.000 98600 1411110, 44 3%for the Arts 75,669 80,000 30.000 30,000 50,000 30600 30,000 230,000 305669 4s Arterial NOV Program 132,354 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 142.354 as Benson Rd SIS 31st Signal 0' 350.000 0 0 0 0 0 350,000 350,000 42 ParkSunset Corridor 64 904 25,000 50.000 200,000 1,750,100 1010,000 0 3.035,100 3,100,004 45 Lind Av-SW 18th-SW43r4 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 1,914000 626.000 0 2,550,000 2.555000 49 SR 169 4100-140th to SR900 6,110,597 30,000 2,550,000 0 340,000 0 0 2,920,000 9030,597 • sa Sunset/Duvall Intersection 1,668,000 30,000_ 0 0 0 0 0 30.000 1,698,000 sr Logan Av Concrete Panel Repan 0 0 0 0 460,000 0 0 460,000 460.000 52 CarriMill Si nal 10,000 20,000 340,000 400.000 10,000 785,000 788,000 g 3,000 5,000 53 Houser Wy S•Main to Burnett 0 0 0 0 810600 0 0 810.000 810,000 , 54 Duvall Ave NE•King County 1,902,546 1,975,000 635,300 0 0 0 0 2.611,300 4,593,946 Total Sources 41,267,941 35,939,779 23,191,300 10,385,000 15,184,700 30,523,100 12,543,200 127,747,079 169,0151020 1 i 1 1 1 1 f t III-15 ( ( ( - n x 4 z ocl SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES Period ITEM Period Total 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Cr SIX-YEAR PROJECT COSTS: C Project Development 3,381,200 626,300 620,300 544,300 510,700_ 554,300 525,300 E lJ Precon Enq/Admin 8,716,138 3,007,338 507,500 383,500 2,027,600 2,255,900 534,300 C R-O-W(includes Admin) 4,173,641 1,858,641 790,000 200,000 350,000 608,000 367,000 J Construction Contract Fee 96,696,200 24,329,800 19,156,000 7,817,700 10,984,200 24,494,400 9,914,100 '-'1 1 •Construction Eng/Admin 9,582,900 2,255,200 1,842,800 784,800 1,144,500 2,478,300 1,077,300 0 0 Other 5197,000 3,862,500 274,700 654,700 147,700 132,200 125,200 `-01 - - mil Sub-TOTAL SIX-YEAR COST 127,747,079 35,939,779 23,191,300 10,385,000 15,164,700 30,523,100 12,543,200 C Cr C rj-1 SOURCE OF FUNDS: E. Vehicle Fuel Tax 1 3,590,000 565,000 585,000 805,000 610,000 475,000 550,000 Business License Fee 1 9_,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 3,376,500 1,309,500 897,000 817,000 V) "t Proposed Fund Balance 7,373,254 4,537,972 2,164,782 670,500 0 0 0 C y 0 Grants In-Hand 16,474,421 8,808,914 5,251,000 1,100,000 1,004,482 310,025 0 n I. 4 Mitigation In-Hand 1 6,567,207 3,035,607 2,261,700 817,800 452,100 0 0 es, rn Bonds/L.I.D.'s Formed 9,461,286 9,461,286 0 0 0, 0 - 0 Other In-Hand .. 25,104,700 7,447,000 9,951,500 3,610,200 619,000 3,435,000 42,000 Sub-TOTAL SIX-YEAR FUNDED 78,170,868 35,455,779 21,813,982 10,380,000 3,995,082 5,117,025 1,409,000 Grants Proposed 1,479,000 484,000 160,000 5,000 630,000 200,000 0 Mitigation Proposed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L.I.D.'s Proposed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Proposed 480,000 0 0 0 480,000 0 0 Undetermined 47 617,211 0 1,217,318 0 10,059,618 25,206,075 11,134,200 Sub-TOTAL SIX-YEAR UNFUNDED 49,576,211 484,000 1,377,318 5,000 11,169,618 25,406,075 11,134,200 TOTAL SOURCES-FUNDED&UNFUNDED 127,747,079 35,939,779 23,191,300 10,385,000 15,164,700 30,523,100 12,543,200 Summ_of_Source 39191.39057 39191.39057 I some lunch aro,050M.0 uauler man 0000000 ATTACHMENT B WATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007- 2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's water system provides service to an area of approximately 16 square miles and more than 14,700 customers located in 12 hydraulically-distinct pressure zones. An inventory of the existing capital facilities in the water system is listed in Figure 8-1 and consists of 8 wells and one spring for water supply, eleven booster pump stations, eight reservoirs, water treatment facilities at each source (chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control) and approximately 283 miles of water main in service. In addition, the City maintains one standby well and seven metered connections with the City of Seattle (Cedar River and Bow Lake supply pipelines) for emergency back-up supply. Renton supplies water on a wholesale basis to Lakeridge Bryn-Mawr Water District. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Water Utility is defined by the ability to provide an adequate amount of high quality water to all parts of the distribution system at adequate pressure during peak demand or fire. This ability is determined by the physical condition of the system and the capacity of supply, storage, treatment, pumping and distribution systems. Level of service standards for the water system vary according to the component of the overall system and are determined by the requirements established by local, state, and federal regulations. Water supply is regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology(water rights), and the Washington State Depai fluent of Health(quantity guidelines), water quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(Safe Drinking Water Act) and the Washington State Department of Health(primacy over Safe Drinking Water Act), system design and construction requirements are regulated by the Washington State Department of Health. The Water Utility maintains a hydraulic model of the water system. The model incorporates the pipe size and location, booster pumps, and storage to determine the flow and pressure available in each segment of the distribution system. The Utility can evaluate the impact of a specific development on the system using the model. The Water Utility reviews each development in terms of flow, pressure, and water supply required. The Water Utility's goal is to provide an adequate supply of potable water under the "worst case" scenario. This scenario considers the following conditions: failure of the largest source of supply, failure of the largest mechanical component, power failure to a single power grid, and/or a reservoir out of service. Under this scenario, the Water Utility strives to meet the following primary requirements: Pressure: Maintain a minimum of 30 pounds per square inch(psi) at the meter during normal demand conditions and a minimum of 20 psi during an emergency. Maximum allowable pressure at the meter during normal demand is 130 psi and a maximum of 150 psi during an emergency Velocity: Under normal demand conditions, the velocity in a transmission main is less than 4 feet per second (fps) and less than 8 fps during an emergency. Supply: The water supply must meet the maximum day demand and replenish storage within 72 hours with the largest source of supply out of service. Storage: Storage volume must be maintained to provide for peak demand and adequate volume for an emergency(fire). Transmission and Distribution: The Water Utility uses design criteria approved by the Washington State Department of Health. Treatment and Monitoring: The Water Utility treats all sources with chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control. Water quality monitoring is conducted as required by the State Department of Health under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The City implements a cross connection control program to prevent cross connections with non potable sources and a wellhead protection program. Fire Flow: Fire flow required by a development is as established in the fire code and can vary from 1000 gallons per minute to 5500 gallons per minute. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2007- 2012 II1-ls ATTACHMENT B Based on the projected growth in population and employment by the year 2012, the existing supply of water will meet the level of service standard. As Fig. 8-1 indicates, with the addition of Wells 11, 12 and 17, the net capacity of the -ystem is 27.07 million gallons per day, which is adequate to meet the City's anticipated growth and maximum day Nis„remand for water to at least 2020. Meeting the current fire flow level of service standards will require improvements to the existing water system if the projected commercial and industrial growth occurs. In general, fire flow is adequate to all single family and multi-family areas with the possible exception of portions of downtown, depending on the extent of new multi-family development and the type of construction. Certain areas slated for commercial and industrial growth will need upgrading of the system. Other improvements to the water system will be needed during the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan because of regulatory requirements relating to water quality and efforts to maintain the existing system at the desired level of service. The list of growth-related facilities needed to meet all of the level of service standards and regulatory requirements are in Fig. 8-2. The funds for the needed facilities are projected to come from a number of sources, including: water utility rates, connection fees, developer extension agreements, low interest loans from state or federal programs, and grants from state and federal agencies. The projected total revenue from all sources for each of the six years in also shown in Fig. 8-2. Nww `fir,. 111-19 ATTACHMENT B Fig. 8-1 On-Line Supply Sources—Existing Water Supply Capacity Name Pumping Rate (gpm) Pumping Rate (mgd) Springbrook 600 0.86 Well RW-1 2,200 3.17 Well RW-2 2,200 3.17 Well RW-3 2,200 3.17 Well RW-5A 1,400 2.02 Well PW-8 3,500 5.04 Well PW-9 1,200 1.73 Well PW-11 2,500 3.60 Well PW-12 1,500 2.16 Well PW-17 1,500 2.16 TOTAL 18,800 GPM 27.07 MGD GPM: gallon per minute MGD: million gallon per day Total annual water rights are 14,809 acre-feet per year Nowiti III-20 ( ( Y -3 Y n w 7 t.,1 z Table 8-2 1 Items for 07 i 2010 011 2012 New ResevoirsDevelopment-Water / lad PumpStations $3?3080,000], $500,000 2009 I $2,000,000 $1?000,000'1 $1,000,0001 Total Supply Development and Water fi $500,0001 $8,380,000 Quality Improvements $810,000 $3,450,0001 $40,0001 $100,0001 $100,000,_ $100,000] $4,600,000 Total]$4,190,000 $3,950,0001 $540,0001 $2,100,0001, $1,100,000 $1,100,0.00 $12,980,000 -- — ES --- - —-- ----- - Funding Sources-Water 2007 2008 2009 j 2010 2011 2012 Total ,C Operating __I $2,458,000 $ 1,641,000 $ 644,0001$ 1,260,000 $ 980,000 $ 1,022,000 $ 8,005,000 o Bonds/Loans _ $3,688,000 $ 2,461,000 I $ 966,000 11 $ 1,890,000__1 $1,470,000 $ 1,533,000 $ 12,008,000 S______DC/SAD_ — $2,634,000 $ 1,758,000 � $ 690,000 $ 1,350,000$1.050,000 1,050,000] $ 1,095,000 $ 8,577,00014 Total $8,780,000 $ 5,860,000 , $ 2,300,000 1 $4,500,000 , $3,500,000 1 $ 3,650,000 $ 28,590,000 C G .1 N O CD Ay .11 O �-- NO'11 Ay 00 N plj AA r.- A Ips Ei '- 'O ifl r.1 cn O i fD O r, n 1 '-r - , rl.f..";a a_'t . 2 rJ.1i i,,-.•.,:r: :.-,SIF-3 . _ _ - - .'., =..,5�:, R$ yS� raj r t i . .' t _ � N N N E #tt k _ ' 1 r • J, Irl & i yye . B- � r �kl Yit it Fitt St �trNF` .3' i t �""iti.,, r:. tt, G�„` .. xk4{ 6 '1 Y l ,„.....:•.y..... 1 • f .h..F s I zlr 1,5.c fL z �, kt+ 3y -.10•,-.:••••••i.- {" fry I,: ; v n h X i r • 4 14 4f ,. sil` 4 r• 14r •11 hI �,. :'7.114'..A'.\1',.. .. ti r • I , it-i„{ tk`VxtC VS,ri. ]Yt7 s 41 x k s.`� .ii<h F6,S } '~ - ':k.<,•, _,`y-,‘••''• 'i I i y t,y ,. irlft� .1 i..-.).:::,..1.,-.---......,,,•..171.-,,,•:9„:.,...,,...1,-.....:„ t ,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,;,,;h:-.N.-7,e; r f� u z43 i .-A5 fr, , - •I .1.t�• r 4 t, -17 ••4r• � i 't t tx ,, t} Y, t. \ yf.,,,.- ' d t� I^ ,4 �3 s # 3 r i I e uI 1 i ,A r 3 5 t 2 +ra'�'x r� .1,-, • f ;IGS. k 1 hs ,r s i,.. E 1,`cw iti-4”d,, -'ti i.,;'7,t\xf r ':- i J.+ , i $7 4 c dt -�ir `.t' _ • I • ..i.aa„_.� �yS �yS ya Fyj ya ya ya ya CI) .,.:" .,} C? ° Ql r f i ' (-:\ N N N N N N N N L - ., ..,...,...=/;44..,a t'i .oi t 1 44 f yst~9'q f `�'y{II Lj'[!"r' I ' iiiiiiii 1 Y.r OQ 3 ,,, a IS i r+ ::•1''''-••:...'''',.:•„"•-•- ...„---f••••`';',--•„.*' ,fk ,'';-"::1•,::.i'.....7 al ., e 3,:•kkY• eYi n g Y cu ,4,-.1.-•,:!..,"•: 1::•'',11.;,,...",•,.••.:1,1,11,1:,..;•,-,z,•,..,;1 \4,..,. S•-i•Y'3kriN'tA ., "b' ... 1 r-r, i. bA ; Id o 7 k x .' c- a'".�t�,Yra�itt .r.aq a 3 t �; y _ ` ' ai tl-t I 4 r s ^" cal. . .2441.'A �?•.".�of .- •k :,..,'.:,,,;',''','','',.1%4'.,,*',� I t { 4 t I ;h>Y 4,k0,• •=t14"A "y•y5',� ,,^d�,,,m&4.f0. • � L,•�� �' rC • k, 't••s,..,,..,:4:.......'•,i i $,,,,,d6'.t.,;k lay's} ;� 1 ,,. aA,a ti. 4 m++ac..ceix t..`.a"�, ;•T4 \, .tl{. h44k o F iak�ir SfrV � fo.1i5nyS yy�Yu>t.4 "'w„V k::•'st;s,, i;',;':',,1 Y iy § 595,tkli sr a r 'tet ttk, AL'als.v at241 3'4x•a t•"'63 f i._ r }� 4 d i h' i t}Y y 1 .a-•, t.SSS.,. K a ) ,, r.y F' .'} 4 d d S F, {44.,}5i4r I,p'•h1A M b i Y `- 1 fy 4,Jie,. .a i1 .. : t Yq r •`}I+.F -4'r}G ,.0•k,i.:.I:yM w''.+ Ifiif ,tFkL 'S , ,:1.!r, , ,y,4t44 i1;4 r ..r-".ro a J�.i•�,' YF?'.'lr,;,,s.ink. -r...rGei,." '41'3 • t i zz 4 4:.pl , ty>.i y;Y;'n's,,j':,•:4-`4,0-„,;'F.i.941;!y,.jb V. k:. � ea'•:ii+`.1000,... ' ,...>!; +,4 0,,e•a."r. „w, i 3•3b.,a3 }iP. `i 4} o w....� Ak ..,...atilt 11,!p d 141 f#4.4 r • ' S�3 a i .3:',,•kr'! • t' ii;1. J?5::4 d>•rkpk'I;i'. • • .k tty�t"�4." {6 :{i tL�:,014?N" iSlk Jq )q. ; (at I- -V LG, ..,::. dl• '.0i! 104;r d.•P•P. d}44 k .1, sr, 4u@t.h,1111.zlS••-• at xi ,fit 3s.�3 '4!' P1" x W y d' .�°u•k?d.a.....k d..Y;l>Nl a,1.tit.?k:4 ti4 Cyb�t Y43ri114,�'£f3a: i1 tX.SaS rc t >E�-a�eyy 1- z v� q _U di rh >, i'.h•,ii'{: } { i4 iid:. A �' �p^�utF"= pp I 7i 6�1`4•b h; Y'P k t 4 M 4;I;4P � ! 1.0 d``y�' ( •}� (! v1. ! � �••C1.+.!(1 ,F�.l�U' 1! fY '�:es;'1yF;;,y'.;t 1.; 4rl t v and N r .f.A .If,1.y,srt Ze+xiFu,AF.re� - z>,„ p.,,a z.„..f`ze-.1(4,t wr! �i! b y W VI i,,nr:r:'I�t}P' 14 S ii,;k ,,,$4sa { t3. • • ::7y TA.rli.4,..{4. h�.}F(.#r'I+s f�i F E.f33• ., �i -�� ,I ';I. 1 < r 6 0'k y..,+ .. .l.Siiii il's'1t�3 47rcky'('�'s .441. ' r li'ytemi,'.'v 9"VV u -- - F r4 , h• F ','.0:i5,1,0 ',/ w S r 5t'vi { u IIY r}':,:';A}rd:CiFylly^�,g4•.t 1 Y r1:44x3.C�,,,:pr�aT1)�y�'-'.l3rtiNZA•�.�',A1YUl��'u..,t.. r'r440ti 1" T .. • ,�t}' t{44.1{�tit•I�:FFV;d44;� "�Y''. ,1 '. nr,.,: A 47F` d(. wr,.afi b' "., - C,L .i •p d i• "s :. ',- i { at T4zi LsFt'q t^ , .b Y{ ,sy:. a,+. �4{?p •:; ayrF} y �i�� ��6�t}.yfC��5t#tr��e�r}! ata� 4za�a39y y N-, 0 tyay~• l <>r�,.. :F.i:',;$': Yd;t.,e:'r s.FI: - • a�a std l„,45:$4 Vd'JrS'.4V-1.-2:10 FjAii --v` 0 Ftr "'a ct.. .i y,�,,;{.''R,,,'j kJ 4 4i JI{N .IFrtdih{iit,', iy-,- --/ - $41,,,i_;i-Y4171.' j 'i' ^�-- •Y X'i-1,;11,,"•..1 a.` LI u3 Fj j • §1.1 Wp. C Yr U F j '"dvd,1,'.4 d" {i{Ikp`};<. {,r {.,I..,:ct�lr} 1:ef:.Ad' - ',� r ,,V.4t7�W , ,. 4V:•v. �4 0 I: ''ly',I<.{i'4'I;kY,}Y::;,,,,, 4'4'4:''IN'•i}>5';•:Ok*•;k • •, i.(�v�y�4, I- i _- / .\.,. :if __ - dl qI 'o p 14 keedi 4k' {b F'td V4'. �'�.~ —� • 1.4, 'I Yl 'I' v}3¢lt / 4,y\,.,; ."';'''':2^".''''-',3 ; .r, 'sitt 5 r� l: %•;`I:l 15 Y ,1,.W,� -•3 1; Y .I �v,.jS^4 T0'T „h' Y�� , lit s,Y, ysa4.':+�] d±,.i-.• ?.,e s ,I,P s r RR"”, • 'sOt•*•4>^}A.dti1 4.:gay.`��4 de'yi;e;r.;d :;W::'',�Y' •". -' •-0-[ _ 61.-'- y1 .,'j. x ., - ,,,, k9ss s„ilri5`}i,.,,,rs, 4 bs I,,. / �tY S 1, '•' ti„ , °4y „ ;Z%.' • P... � 'k b•,1 4 G 7 I�`k. ,,, 94A4}y}. d i.•/ lF,( ly,- p. r 4 i ie -iV\, i�� 4.i..,x;�,+.,p-----...4..,,i,.,,,,,.:,,,,,,,. r,i,v;•s,}h;,44, 1 40,,{,,.9 „,,,,r•-•••,-;...• {4.-,,-`. ,,t J :r: { ”-.�.c `/ • w,(� It ss,s 4 .d•.b ^ " .,.., / , — rV • ,,. n'v .;..�,_.;-'µ ...� ,3 +. t -.4 h • W e:, J E^ ) ,1)) ATTACHMENT B WASTEWATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007-2012Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's sanitary sewer system consists of about 205 miles of gravity sewers, 26 lift stations with associated force mains, and approximately 3,800 manholes. Wastewater is discharged to regional facilities at over 75 locations within the service area. The locations of Renton's sewer interceptors and lift stations, as well as Metro's sewer lines, are shown in Figure 9-2. The City's Wastewater Utility serves approximately 15,700 customers, which includes approximately ninety-five percent of the city's population and eighty-five percent of the city's land area. The remaining five percent of the population currently utilizes private, on-site wastewater disposal systems, typically septic system, while the balance of the land area either utilizes private systems or remains undeveloped. The capacity of the existing facilities is adequate to handle the current demand. The Lake Washington East Basin while currently having sufficient capacity, needs some improvements to portions of the Sunset Interceptor to assure sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. The West Renton Sub-basin also needs to be further evaluated to determine potential capacity restraints. A full hydraulic model has been developed to evaluate, system wide, the long term need and timing for upsizing of existing interceptors and the timing for additional interceptors for new portions of our service area. The conclusions of this analysis are included in a Final Report dated July 2006. Results from this report will be incorporated into the 2008-2013 CIP and the 2007/08 update to the Wastewater Long Range Management Plan. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is defined by the ability to move sewage from the point of origin, the customer, to the treating agency, King County, in a safe and efficient manner. This ability is determined by the physical condition of Renton's system and the capacity available in the system. It is the Renton Wastewater Utility's responsibility to maintain the system in a safe condition and monitor the standards for new construction. The Wastewater Utility is also responsible for ensuring that capacity exists in the system prior to new connections or that the capacity is created as part of the new development. The level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is developed through coordination with and subject to the policies, design criteria, and standards used for planning and operating a sanitary sewer system as established by the laws and policies of several agencies. Those agencies, in order by authority, are the Department of Ecology(Criteria for Sewage Works Design), King County (King County Wastewater Treatment Division), and the City of Renton. As stated above, the Utility has developed a new hydraulic model thatallows the Utility to perform dynamic analysis on any portion of its interceptor system given any scenario, to determine capacity within the system. The model is also based upon two years worth of wet-weather flow data that was developed as part of a regional effort by King County. This new tool gives us much greater ability to predict future capacity within our interceptors. The Wastewater Utility's goal is to have sufficient capacity to handle what the Utility considers the 'worst case scenario'. That is, the amount of waste if everybody was discharging their highest amount at the same time and the system was experiencing the highest amount of inflow and infiltration anticipated. 111-24 ATTACHMENT B For existing and projected development Renton uses the following criteria for flow projection: I Average Single Family Domestic Flow 270 gallons per day per unit Overage Multi-Family Domestic Flow 190 gallons per day per unit "Light Industrial 2800 gallons per acre per day Heavy Industrial site specific Commercial 2800 gallons per acre per day Office 2800 gallons per acre per day Recreation 300 gallons per acre per day Public 600 gallons per acre per day Manufacturing Park 2800 gallons per acre per day Peak Infiltration/Inflow(New System) 1500 gallons per acre per day Peak Inflow/Infiltration (Existing System) From Sewer Hydraulic Model Peaking factor for system average 2.0 X Depth to Diameter Ratio 0.80 (eight tenths) The criteria listed above are based upon Table IV-3 of the 1998 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, with an amendment for actual Inflow and Infiltration values based upon updated criteria from King County. This criteria is subject to change based upon the latest adopted Long Range Wastewater Management Plan or amendments thereto. These flows are averages used as standards. Actual design flows may vary considerably, depending upon land use. The Wastewater Utility will consider verifiable alternate design flows that may be submitted. If Renton's sewer system has the capacity to handle the flows projected, based upon the above criteria, or a developer improves the system to provide the capacity, the project achieves concurrence with the Wastewater Utility's level of service. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan 2007- 2012 Based on the forecasted growth in population and employment over the next 20 years, daily wastewater flows are predicted to increase by about 15.3 million gallons per day (mgd.) This increase is expected to impact the entire system, with the greatest impact expected to occur in the East Cedar River Basin and Lake Washington East Basin. In order to maintain the desired level of service and accommodate the projected growth, facility improvements are scheduled in both the East Cedar River Basin and the Lake Washington East Basin over the next two years. Another factor affecting level of service is the age of the existing system. A significant portion of the city's wastewater collection and conveyance system is over fifty years old. Some of these mains cannot be relied upon to provide the desired level of service without major repair and/or replacement. Consequently, the primary component of the six-year facility plan is the repair and replacement of the existing system in order to maintain the current level of service. Some of the geographic areas in which these mains are located will experience more growth than will others,but facility improvements will be needed regardless. It is currently the policy of the Wastewater Utilities that all parcels connecting to the sewer system pay for their fair share of the system. This is accomplished in a combination of three methods: 1. Local Improvement Districts may be formed with the city installing the sewers using LID bonds encumbering the participating parcels; 2. The Wastewater Utility may front the cost of new sewers and hold Special Assessment Districts against benefiting parcels; and 3. Developers or potential users will front the cost of extending the main with the ability to hold a latecomer agreement against the other parcels that potentially benefit. Projects that replace and rehabilitate the existing system, as well as operation and maintenance costs,will be funded through rates paid by existing customers. Existing sewer customers will not be required to participate in Special ern+Assessment District fees, latecomer fees, or local improvement districts unless they redevelop or increase the density on their property. 111-25 ATTACHMENT B Table 9-1 lists the projects needed to meet growth, along with the sources of funds for them for the period 2005-2010, based upon the six-year growth projections and the desired level of wastewater service. III-26 — ( ( '—i CD 0—q • il ›- o = --L 4 ts.) ril Table 9-1 I , ; Items for Development-Wastewater 2007 2008 I 2009 ' 2010 2011 2012 1 Total -1 -, tzi Sanitary Sewer Main Extensions $900,000 , I $900,000 L I Lift Station Replacement/Rehabilitation $2,200,000 I- I -1 1 $2,200,000 I- -- --,-, -11- 1 ! I Funding Sources-Wastewater 2007i 2008 2009 t 2010 ; 2011 2012 1 Totl - k -I Operating $ 735,000] $ 735,000 $ 735,000 I $ 735,000 I $ 735,000 I $ 735,000 I $ 4,410,000 Bonds/Loans I $1,103,0001 $ 1,103,000 $ 1,103,000 I $ 1,103,000 I $1,103,000 $ 1,103,000T$ 6,615,000 SDC/SAD 1 $ 788,000 I $ 788,000 $ 788,000 I $ 788,000 I $ 788,000 $ 788,000 1, $ 4,725,000 Total $2,625,000 I $ 2,625,000 $ 2,625,000 I $ 2,625,000 I $2,625,00-61 $ 2,625,000 I $ 15,750,000' ..e4 P cn r-r- ..., 14- CC> °It .1 ..• Cfq E n = t.J ''Z elp --1 • VZ AD gi 'j15. cA ATTACHMENT B NIS III-28 ( ( ( H /1 MERCER ���� N 'C�'/ ryj TSLANT) s I 00,1,5l';;4 r_n NEWCASTLE r M/fid' .K' ±�FN•3 �i _ — I —TH cr,- ' I '-.14- ,�t �` Wit¢�, ._ � w �� � XJ • rSEATTLE4.45 : k" �< ma sd ; 4 ' _ .rir,i • Lift Stations i. t �,a m ;;yCly Metro Think Lines � { -,�s' - City of Renton Interceptors 'h b 4 .7Y"ok _. M �g � (b �� Y IL' j 'M1{"',.ta. ,;��`;,4 F.;J T_ 'M'S �,,:x�7 �` s 4� lei r,.,.a L x,, F°E - ,x r�;?aRa,;.�i3 i.� ciD M �" ;M r ''';#',431.1":'' ��� :t^ S"e 'r� ::.rr 1 i,x; y ' Metro's East Division rt .w�. . -1° : .+� '��"x�.y..,..,a.m.,Yez q`„'p�{ ”>9r„rs: :r�,3s f r",.*`,.,51:'''j3,:£, ._, „M,_�ta,. Reclamation Plant rtq 1`-7 / �.'i 7 0AR� ",,..„,-,,:1&.46-1,0,t4,” A°u V'Pl`' `„`5i`'e +ms's' a r.y ar' 4y;. .j''..,' ^t as ,yea ms .b4 ..t - ,�,'�c 4°i 4f � 'I",, '-°,- r,., • 7 �^'IP�i '13L" +45' F f'x �t»'S q`F Fp [0 �2:": ^kiY Hwy-`�., 1 h�4.7Q + ,�i t„..4....° q'" 1 :,,"" ' r. �S+v�, 3`.�. u 4�v..S�kk"`w'nT rgT,�,:t,r.�..n� y N �� •I� � 'w 1���..tr ¢..P•" rr ` 34�h. 2a'3 -. t t ¢xz 1� 3�4`.'�•^ zr<:;a� �.Y�#"":�.�".a Clt L.l iYlliS • W .,� ,t;t ; ,r� x . Tilr4 Urban Growth Boundary E. ro cn ,-G.. »� ndn ';';';5'' '',';''.;''''.,',;'(''; .:;:.:;,. City of Renton Sanitary Sewer it F �:rs`l `=. p, 't n� , ; z y Service Area TIKWIL ' � � r �� r`ey ' �,1'g4 0 6000 12000 yet-_ _ » : ki \ 1:72,000t Si : iY , s KENTn" � \ \`s°"a Note: For graphic presentation only (� ,"`' ` \ '� Facilities are not to scale. V � �ti�Y a LONG RANGE PLANNING n . 1 _ -- _ (---`� �, ;c R.hfacOme,D.Visnetikl,D.Ellis i �. % NTo 7�'April 1007 l 1_ ATTACHMENT B SURFACE WATER UTILITY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007- 2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton is composed of various drainage basins and sub-basins. The major basins within the existing City limits include the East Lake Washington, West Lake Washington, May Creek, Lower Cedar River and Black River basins. The City of Renton is located at the outlet end of a majority of these basins that discharge into either the Green/Duwamish River or into Lake Washington. The Surface Water Utility's service area within the existing City corporate boundaries is approximately 17.2 square miles. The existing surface water system includes rivers, streams, ditches, swales, lakes, wetlands, detention facilities (pond and piped systems),water quality swales, wetponds, wetvaults, oil/water separators, coalescing plate oil/water separators, pipes, catch basins, manholes, outfalls and pump stations. The natural surface water systems (rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands) are shown on Renton's Critical Area Maps. A majority of the water quantity and quality facilities are privately owned and maintained on-site as required in accordance with the Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance (RMC Chapter 22, Section 4-22). The Surface Water Utility owns, maintains, and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated for storm and surface water management purposes. The Utility currently owns, operates, and maintains approximately 204 miles of storm pipe systems including an estimated 8000 catch basin and manhole structures, 26 detention facilities and 37.67 miles of ditch systems. A combination of the public and some of the private storm system is shown in the Surface Water Utility Storm System Inventory Maps and Attributes data base which is too large to present here. Level of Service Background The Surface Water Utility's policies, design criteria, and standards used for planning, engineering, operating, and maintaining the storm and surface water systems are based upon requirements that originate from many sources. Together, these regulations define the acceptable level of service for surface water. ` The intended level of service is to accomplish the following: e Provide adequate of surface water management for the appropriate rainfall duration and intensity to protect public safety, property and convenience of areas within City; • Provide a level of storm water treatment that adequately protects surface and groundwater quality and other beneficial uses of water bodies; • Provide flow control from new construction that restricts the rate of storm water runoff to pre-developed level; and • Provide protection of fish and wildlife habitat. The primary Federal, State and local agencies and regulations which affect the City of Renton's level of service standard for surface and storm water systems are listed below: 1. Federal Agencies/Regulations/Policies: a. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA): i. Federal Clean Water Act ii. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit) b. Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE) i. Nationwide/404 Individual Permit Requirements ii. Federal Emergency Management Act standards Nwid III-30 ATTACHMENT B 2. State Agencies/Regulations: a. Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDOE): i. NPDESPhase 2 Municipal Storm Water Permit ii. NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit iii. 401 Water Quality Certification Permits iv. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Permit v. Shoreline Management Program(SMP) vi. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan vii. 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington b. Washington State Depaitinent of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) i. Hydraulic Project Approval Permits 3. Local Agencies/Regulations/Policies: a. Cedar River Basin Plan h. May Creek Basin Plan c. Green River Basin Plan d. Green River Flood Control Zone District/Green River Basin Program e. King County Flood Hazard Management Plan e. King County Surface Water Design Manual as adapted by Renton Level of Service Standard in Renton The Surface Water Utility level of service is the adopted surface water design standards which are consistent with the i.bove referenced federal, state, and local regulations as specified in the City of Renton Storm and Surface Water „.)rainage ordinance (RMC 4-22). New surface water management systems are designed to accommodate the future land use condition runoff based upon the city's Land Use Element and the future land use plans of neighboring jurisdictions. The standards specified in the city-adopted portions of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual require that: 1. Post-development peak rate of runoff be controlled to the pre-developed peak rate of runoff up to the 10- year design storm; 2. Water quality facility "Best Management Practices” (BMP's) such as biofiltration, wetponds, wetvaults, coalescing plate oil/water separators, and erosion control measures are used; 3. Pipe systems be designed to convey the 25-year post-developed design storm without overflowing the system and pipe conveyance systems have adequate capacity to convey the 100-year design stoiiii provided that the runoff is contained within defined conveyance system elements without inundating or over topping the crown of a roadway; and/or no portions of a building will be flooded; and/or if overland sheet flow occurs, it will flow through a drainage easement. 4. New drainage ditches or channels be designed to convey at least the peak runoff from the 100-year design storm without over-topping. As a condition of SEPA, the City requires projects in areas of the City that drain to streams that flow down steep ravines to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirement and to meet the Level 2 Flow Control and Duration standard. Projects have also been required to comply with the surface water design standards in the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington when deemed appropriate by he City as a condition of SEPA, or because it was required as a condition of another agencies permit. The City is '`required to adopt new storm and surface water design standards that are equivalent to the standards in the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington by no later than August 2009. The adoption of the 111-31 ATTACHMENT B new stornr water design standards is a requirement of the national Pollutant discharge Elmination System(NPDES) Phase 2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System storm water permit. The NPDES Phase 2 Municipal storm water permit was issued by Ecology in January 2007 to regulate the discharge of runoff into waters of the United States in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. Projects that comply with the above-cited standards will achieve an acceptable level of service for surface water management purposes within the City of Renton. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2007-2012 The capital facilities estimated to be needed to solve current surface water management problems and to prevent future surface water management problems associated with the growth projected for the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed sources of funding are listed in Figure 10-1. The sources of revenues to be utilized by the Surface Water Utility to implement the needed capital improvements include the following: 1. Surface Water Utility rates; 2. Permit fees and system development charges; 3. Revenue bonds; 4. Private latecomers agreements; 5. Surface Water Utility Special Assessment Districts; 6. Low interest loans (state revolving funds, Public Works Trust Fund); 7. Cost-sharing interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions and special districts; 8. Army Corps of Engineers - Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects Program and other financial assistance programs available to municipalities authorized by Congress; 9. USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS)Watershed Flood Prevention and Protection Act (Public Law 566) and other SCS programs; 10. Grants from state and federal agencies such as: a. Washington State Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund; b. Washington State Department of Community Development Flood Control Assistance Account Program; c. Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board and other grants that may be available from the County, State or Federal Government to improve fish habitat; d. Washington State legislative appropriations approved for Special Surface Water Utility projects (Cedar River Delta project); and 11. Other unidentified federal, state, and local grant programs. As is evident in Figure 10-1 on the following page, the Surface Water Utility proposed to use all or any combination of the financial sources to fund the needed capital facilities. 1II-32 ,--3 -i - 2-1 e. r=i ,-3 Table 10-1 I I - - ------ --- = Items for Development-Surface Water ____1 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat 1 i 1 I Mitigation Bank $150,0001 $100,0001 $100,000 $100,0001 $100,0001 $100,000 $650,000 Storm System Improvement and I 1 , 1 Replacement $125,000 $1,200,000] $1,400,000 $1,150,0001 $950,000L $850,000 $5,675,000 Springbrook Creek Improvements $1,300,000t I _ J_ 9 ,o0i $200,000 $1,600,000 Cedar River Basin I 1 $150,0001 $ L 700,0001 $850,000 Green River Ecosystem Restoration $10,0001 $10,000; $10,000 --1 $10,0001 $10,006 $10,000 $60,000 cA — — ------ - ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ------ - = Total ,000 $1,160,006 $8,8357666 -t ...n -I -- 1 AD et ---- ] -1 et 1 , .0.4 , -.. Funding Sources-Surface Water - 2007 I 2008 2009 2010 2011 ' 2012 Total AD ,-e- bperating $ 713,000 r$ 589,000 !—$ 651,000 $ 620,000 $ 868,000 $ 899,006 $ 4,340,000 CD .4 C-4 Bonds/Loans $1,173,000 7$ 969,000 $ 1,071,000 $ 1,020,000 $1,428,000 $ 1,479,000 $ 7,140,000 o c:::, ,-.- .-• SDC/SAD 1 $ 391,000 $ 323,000 I $ 357,000 $ 340,000j_$ 476,000 1 $ 493,000 $ 2,380,000 = UrTaetermined— $ 23,000 i $ 19,000 $ 21,000 $ 20000 1 $ 28,0061$ 29,000. $ 140,000 I---, Total] $2,300,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 2,100,000 I $ 2,000,000 ; $2,800,000 $ 2,900,000 1 $ 14,000,000 © 1 - n - *E. -,- 2. = ro. cn ATTACHMENT B Ned 111-34 ATTACHMENT B PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE '*or"' CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007-2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton is the primary provider of park and recreation services within the city limits. These services include parks, indoor facilities, open space areas and recreation programs. Other suppliers that provide facilities and services include the Renton School District and several private enterprises. Figure 11-1 below is a summary of the amount of park and open space area provided by the City of Renton; provided by others within the City's Proposed Annexation Area(PAA) and the total for the overall Planning Area. Fig. 11-1 Park and Open Space Areas Summary Type of Facility Renton PAA Planning Area Total Neighborhood Parks 97.37 20.20 117.57 Community Parks 130.36 93.36 223.72 Regional Parks 55.33 50.00 105.33 Open Space Areas 683.11 178.81 861.92 Linear Parks &Trails 12.04 Miles/ 0.00 12.04/1 1 acre Special Use Parks & Facilities 190.66 0.00 190.66 TOTAL 1157.83 342.37 1500.2 Figures 11-2 and 11-3 on the following pages list the individual park and open space areas that comprise the categories summarized above. Figurell-2 details Renton's Parks and Open Spaces by category and Figure 11-3 lists public land in Renton's PAA. The table lists the name of each park or open space, its size in acres, and its status as of January 2001. err, 111-35 AsIIININININIIIIIIINIIv , ATTACHMENT B Fig. 11-2 Public Park and Open Space Areas in Renton Detailed Listing Park Acres Status Neighborhood Parks (20) Earlington Park 1.54 Developed Glencoe Park .42 Developed Heritage Park 9.18 Developed Jones Park 1.18 Developed Kennydale Beach 1.76 Developed Kermydale Lions Park 5.66 Developed Kiwanis Park 9.00 Developed Maplewood Park 2.20 Developed Maplewood Roadside Park 1.00 Developed North Highlands Park 2.64 Developed Philip Arnold Park 10.00 Developed Riverview Park 11.50 Developed Sit In Park 0.50 Developed Springbrook Watershed Park 16.00 Undeveloped Sunset Court 0.50 Developed Talbot Hill Reservoir 2.50 Developed Thomas Teasdale Park 10.00 Developed Tonkins Park 0.29 Developed Tiffany Park 7.00 Developed Windsor Hill Park 4.50 Developed TOTAL 97.37 Acres Nisi Community Parks (7) Cedar River Park 23.07 Developed Cedar River Trail Park 24.20 Developed Highlands Park 10.40 Developed Liberty Park 11.89 Developed Narco Property 15.00 Undeveloped Piazza &Gateway 0.80 Developed Ron Regis Park 45.00 Developed TOTAL 130.36 Acres Regional Parks (1) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 55.33 Developed TOTAL 55.33 Acres Open Space Areas (10) Black River Riparian Forest 92.00 Undeveloped Cedar River Natural Area 237.00 Undeveloped Cleveland Property 23.66 Undeveloped Honey Creek 35.73 Undeveloped Lake Street 1.00 Undeveloped May Creek/McAskill 10.00 Undeveloped May Creek Greenway 29.82 Undeveloped Panther Creek Wetlands 73.00 Undeveloped 1I1-36 ATTACHMENT B Renton Wetlands 125.00 Undeveloped Springbrook Watershed 38.00 Undeveloped Edlund/Korum Property 17.90 Undeveloped TOTAL 683.11 Acres Linear Parks & Trails (9) Burnett Linear Park 1.0 acre Developed Cedar River Trail 4.5 miles Developed Honey Creek Trail 1.0 miles Developed Springbrook Trail 2.0 miles Developed S.W. 16th Trail .5 miles Developed Garden/16th/Houser 1.0 miles Developed Lake Washington Blvd 1.5 miles Developed Gene Coulon Park 1.5 miles Developed Ripley Lane .04 miles Developed TOTAL 12.04 Miles./1 Acre Special Use Parks &Facilities (10) Boathouse 4,242 s.f. Developed Carco Theatre (310 seats) 11,095 s.f. Developed Community Garden/Greenhouse 960 s.f/.46 acres Developed Henry Moses Aquatic Center(including Bldgs.) 58,088 s.f. Developed Highlands Neighborhood Center 11,906 s.f.Developed Ivar's Restaurant 1,540 s.f. Developed Kidd Valley Restaurant 2,150 s.f. Developed Kiwanis Park Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Developed ,e Liberty Park Skate Park 14,250 s.f. Developed Maplewood Golf Course 190 acres Developed Maplewood Golf Course/Restaurant/Pro Shop 15,508 s.f. Developed Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range 11,559 s.f. Developed North Highlands Neighborhood Center 4,432 s.f. Developed Philip Arnold Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Developed Renton Community Center 36,000 s.f. Developed Renton Senior Activity Center 18,264 s.f. Developed Teasdale Park Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Developed Tiffany Park Neighborhood Center 1,800 s.f. Developed Veterans Memorial Park 0.2 acres Developed TOTAL 195,904 Sq. Ft., 190.66 Acres CITY-WIDE TOTAL 1,157.83 Acres 12.04 1\Iiles 195,904 Square Feet '44rrr' 111-37 ATTACHMENT B Fig. 11-3 Public park and open space areas in Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas (PAAs) Detailed Listing Petrovitsky Park 50.0 Acres Developed Sub-Total (Community Parks) 50.0 Acres Maplewood Community Park Site 40.0 Acres Undeveloped Skyway Park 23.08 Acres Developed Boulevard Lane Park 30.28 Acres Developed Sub-Total (Community Parks) 93.36 Acres Sierra Heights Park 4.7 Acres Developed Maplewood Park 4.8 Acres Developed Cascade Park 10.7 Acres Developed Sub-Total (Neighborhood Parks) 20.2 Acres May Creek Greenway 150.0 Acres Renton Park 19.0 Acres Maplewood Heights 5.0 Acres Bryn Mawr 4.81 Acres Sub-Total (Open Space) 178.81 Acres Total,Public Park and Open Space Within Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas 342.37 Acres Lindberg/Renton Pool Total (Special Use Facilities) 1 In addition to the park and open space areas,the city operates a number of specialized facilities as an ongoing component of the total recreational services it provides. Figure1 l-4 which follows lists the specialized facilities owned by the city as well as those specialized public facilities within the city limits that are owned by others. 11I-38 ATTACHMENT B Fig. 11-4 Specialized Facilities within the Renton City Limits '4rwr Number Facility Comments Ballfields City-owned: 1 Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park 1 Kennydale Lions Park 1 Kiwanis Park 2 Liberty Park 2 lighted 1 Maplewood Park Small Field 1 Ron Regis Lighted 1 Philip Arnold Park Lighted 1 Thomas Teasdale Park 1 Tiffany Park TOTAL 11 FIELDS Within the city limits but owned by others: 2 Hazen High School 2 Highlands Elementary School Small Fields 1 Hillcrest School Small Field 4 Honeydew Elementary School Small Fields 3 McKnight Middle School 4 Nelson Middle School Small Fields 4 Renton High School 1 Talbot Hill Elementary err. 1 Tiffany Park Elementary TOTAL 22 FIELDS Number Facility Comments Football/Soccer Fields City -owned: 1 Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park 1 Kiwanis Park 1 Philip Arnold Park 1 lighted 1 Ron Regis Park 1 lighted 1 Thomas Teasdale Park 1 Tiffany Park TOTAL 7 FIELDS Within the city limits but owned by others: 1 Hillcrest School 2 Honeydew Elementary School 1 Kennydale Elementary 1 McKnight Middle School 1 Renton High School 1 Renton Stadium 1 lighted TOTAL 7 FIELDS Tennis Courts City-owned: 2 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 2 Highlands Park 2 lighted 2 Kiwanis Park III-39 ATTACHMENT B 3 Liberty Park 3 lighted 1 North Highlands Park 2 Philip Arnold Park 2 lighted 3 Talbot Hill Reservoir 2 Tiffany Park TOTAL 17 COURTS Within the city limits but owned by others: 4 Hazen High School 4 McKnight Middle School 2 Nelson Middle School 5 Renton High School TOTAL 15 COURTS Swimming Pools Within the city limits but owned by others: 1 Hazen High School Indoor TOTAL 1 POOL Level of Service Standards for park and recreation levels of service were first established nationally based on "Standard Demand" and have been modified at state and local levels to meet local needs. The national level of service (LOS) standards were established by committees of recreation professionals based on practical experience in the field, and are felt to be most useful in quantifiable teuus, i.e. acres of park land per population served. The most recognized standards are those developed by the National Recreation Park Association (NRPA). In 1983 that organization published a report titled "Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards" that is well recognized in the recreation field. The Park CFP establishes a 2-tiered approach: 1)an overall LOS standard based on total population and total acreage; and 2) LOS standards for individual neighborhoods and for specific types of parks and facilities within parks. The overall LOS is a gauge of whether the City is meeting overall concurrence for GMA. The second tier identifies areas where deficiencies exist so the City can target its funds to eliminate those deficiencies while still maintaining overall LOS. The proposed LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space plan is 18.58 acres/1,000 population. The 2007 LOS in Renton is 19.84 acres/1,000 population. The LOS within Renton's Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) is only 5.35 acres/1,000, which reduces the 2007 overall Planning Area LOS to 12.26 acres/1,000. Continued acquisition of park and open space lands will be needed as the City's residential growth continues within its existing boundaries, and as it expands into its underserved PAA's. The recommended service levels for Renton were developed after discussions with City staff and the Board of Park Commissioners. They are based on participation ratios by which a community can estimate in quantifiable terms the number of acres or facilities required to meet the population demand. Attaching a standard to a population variable makes it easy to forecast future needs as the population grows. The table below identifies the current overall LOS in Renton and within Renton's planning area. *mid 111-4i) ATTACHMENT B Fig 11-5 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) - OVERALL Park& Open Existing LOS Space Land Population (Acres/1,000) City of Renton 1,157.83 58,360 19.84 Renton's PAA's 342.37 64,000 5.35 Total Planning Area 1,500.2 112,360 12.26 Starting below, existing service levels and recommended standards by park types within Renton are given. Each park type compares the NRPA Standard to the existing service levels and the recommended standards. This information is provided to indicate how Renton's current level of service compares to national and local standards. `�irrr err+' 111-41 ATTACHMENT B Figure 11-6 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)—BY PARK TYPE Figures shown are in acres/1,000 population Park and Open Space Areas 1. Neighborhood Parks Definition: Neighborhood parks are small park areas (usually 2-10 acres in size) utilized for passive use and unstructured play. They often contain an open space for field sports, a children's playground, a multi-purpose paved area, a picnic area and a trail system. For heavily wooded sites, the amount of active use area is substantially reduced. NRPA Standard 1-2 Acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Renton): 1.7 Acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area) .32 Acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 1.2 Acres/1,000 Population Comments: The recommended standard reflects the shifting emphasis on larger parks and open space recreational opportunities that cost less to maintain and operate than do neighborhood parks. 2. Community Parks Definition: Community parks are traditionally larger sites that can accommodate organized play and contain a wider range of facilities. They usually have sport fields or other major use facilities as the central focus of the park. In many cases, they will also serve the neighborhood park function. Community parks generally average 10-25 acres in size with a substantial portion of them devoted to active use. Sometimes, smaller sites with a singular purpose that maintain a community-wide focus can be considered community parks. NRPA Standard: 5-8 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Renton): 2.25 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 1.46 acres/1,000 population Recommended LOS Standard: 2.5 acres/1,000 population Comments: The low existing ratio reflects a past emphasis within Renton on neighborhood parks. While the recommended standard is well below the NRPA standard, it represents a shifting emphasis to community parks. 3. Regional Parks Definition: Regional parks are large park areas that serve geographical areas that stretch beyond the community. They may serve a single purpose or offer a wide range of facilities and activities. In many cases they also contain large areas of undeveloped open space. Many regional parks are acquired because of unique features found or developed on the site. I1I-42 ATTACHMENT B NRPA Standard: 5-10 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Renton: .95 acres/1,000 population i+rrr Existing LOS (Planning Area): .78 acres/1,000 population Recommended Standard: 1.08 acres/1,000 population Comments: Renton has the potential for developing another regional park located in the Cedar River corridor. The recommended standard of 1.08 acres per 1,000 population recognizes the potential for creating a Cedar River Regional Park consisting of the following Special Use Parks: Cedar River Park, Maplewood Roadside Park, Maplewood Golf Course, and the Cedar River Property. 4. Open Space Areas Definition: This type of park area is defined as general open space, trail systems, and other undeveloped natural areas that includes stream corridors, ravines, easements, steep hillsides or wetlands. Often they are acquired to protect an environmentally sensitive area or wildlife habitats. In other cases they may be drainage corridors or heavily wooded areas. Sometimes trail systems are found in these areas. Existing LOS (Renton) 11.71acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 2.8 acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 12.7 acres/1,000 Population Comments: majority of this type of land is wetlands, steep slopes, or otherwise not suitable for recreational development. 5. Linear Parks Nov Definition: Linear parks are open space areas, landscaped areas, trail systems and other land that generally follow stream corridors, ravines or other elongated features, such as a street, railroad or power line easement. This type of park area usually consists of open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of this type of area. Existing LOS (Renton): .02 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 0 acres/1,000 Population Recommended Standard: 0.3 acres/1,000 Population Comments: The majority of linear park land is found along the banks of the Cedar River and Honey Creek. There are other opportunities for linear parks utilizing utility corridors. 6. Special Use Parks and Facilities Definition: Specialized parks and facilities include areas that generally restrict public access to certain times of the day or to specific recreational activities. The golf course and major structures are included in this category. Existing LOS (Renton): 3.7 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 0 acres/1,000 Population Recommended Standards: 0.8 acres/1,000 Population 'fir III-43 ATTACHMENT B 7. Total Park Land Presently, Renton has 1157.83acres of total park land within the city boundaries. Together with another 342.37 acres of public park and open space land within Renton's PAAs (Potential Annexation Areas), the total amount of park and open space land within Renton's planning area is 1,500.2acres. NRPA Standard: 15-20 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Renton): 19.84 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 5.35 acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 18.58 acres/1,000 Population Comments: While the recommended standard of 18.58 acres per 1,000 population seems high, most of the acreage is in the open space category. Most of this land is undevelopable as steep hillsides, wetlands, or environmentally sensitive areas. Specialized Facilities Below are the recommended levels of service for specialized recreation facilities. In addition to the NRPA standard and the existing facility ratio, an estimate of the participation level in Renton compared to the average for the Pacific Northwest is also provided. The existing inventory includes city-owned facilities as well as those facilities within the city limits owned by other public entities. I. Ballfields (Includes baseball and softball fields) NRPA Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population Existing Participation: Average Existing Inventory: 20 fields * Existing Facility Ratio: .9 field per 2,500 population Recommended Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population * Small fields were excluded for purposes of evaluation. 2. Football/Soccer Fields NRPA Standard: 1 field per 10,000 population Existing Participation: 75 % below average Existing Inventory: 26 fields Existing Facility Ratio: 1.3 fields per 3,000 population Recommended Standard: 1 field per 3,000 population Comments Because of the extremely high existing facility ratio and the below average participation rate, the recommended standard--while substantially above the NRPA standard—is roughly the same as the existing facility ratio. 3. Tennis Courts NRPA Standard: 1 court per 2,000 population Existing Participation: 15 % below average Existing Inventory: 32 courts Existing Facility Ratio: 1.4 courts per 2,500 population Recommended Standard: 1 court per 2,500 population Comments Based on the substantially above average existing facility ratio, the recommended standard is almost equivalent to the existing facility ratio. 4. Swimming Pools (indoor) NRPA Standard: I pool per 20,000 population 111-44 ATTACHMENT B Existing Participation: Average Existing Inventory: 1 indoor pool Existing Facility Ratio: ..68 per 40,000 population *taio, Recommended Standard: 1 pool per 40,000 population Comments 5. Walking Trails Existing Participation: 16% above average Existing Inventory: 9.0 miles (off-street) Existing Facility Ratio: .15 miles per 1,000 population Recommended Standard: .20 miles per 1,000 population Comments The recommended standard reflects a strong local interest in walking trails and the fact that the city directed its efforts to other areas until recent years. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan—, 2007-2012 Figure 11-Ion the following page shows the projects which may need to be begun over the next six years to achieve the recommended level of service standards if the forecast growth -- and therefore, demand --occurs. Figure 11-8 also includes potential funding sources for each project, where known. 111-45 n rx1 2 Table 11-4 i I I I Items for Development 2007 2008 2009 2010 ,-- 2011 ' —2-012 1 Total Black River Riparian Forest $__8__5,_000 $100,000 -_$200,0_0_0, $2,000,000 $2,385,000 Sam Chastain Waterfront Trail $500,000 $4,00.0,000` _ _ jI $4,500,000 0 00 h 1 $120,000 , 0 $720,006 FamilyAquatic Center __- $120,000 $120,000; $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 Grant Matching Program $200,000] $100,000! $100,000_ $100,000_1 $100,000'1 $100,000 $700,000 Maplewood CommunityPark Development $100,000 $300,000 $3,000,0__00;[ 1 $3,0_00,000; $6,400,000 New Maintenance Facility $335,000 $4,000,0001 $2,000,000 ( $6,192,000 North Highlands Community Center $250,0001 $1,750,000 j J $2,000,000 Parks Long Range Plan $60,000 I ! $60,000 Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion $200,000, $2,300,000 $2,500,000 — 000 -- $1,600,000 Springbrook Trail Missing Link _ $1,600,000 —_—_ Tiffany Park Recreation Building 1 $15,000 1 $15,000 Total $2,830,000 $8,770,0001 $6,655,000 $3,320,0001 $420,0001 $5,220,000, $27,072,000 od P 0 CIQ N N J r• A a � ATTACHMENT B `o1rr e 'EknrP NIlaw III-47 -3 Table 11-5 1 -- Funding Sources 2007 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 2012 1Total Operating I $2 755 000 $ 220 000 $ 220 000 L $ 220 000 I $ 220 000 $ 220 000 I $ 3 855 000 Bond Proceeds $ 3,100:000 $ 500:0091 $ 3600:000 Mitigation 1 $2,265,000 I $ 2,265,0091- Undetermined $ 181,000 1 $ 7,820,000 $ 7,150,000 $4,512,000 $ 941,000 1 $ 5,631,000 $26,235,000 Total $5,201,0001$11,140,000 1 $ 7,870,000 $4,732,000 $1,161,000 $ 5,851,000 , $3g,955,000 171 1-4 n ** ,7:1 cro • I 4-4- o-• 011 IND AD (X) Ft: ATTACHMENT B GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007- 2012 FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL FACILITIESInventory of Existing Facilities Now, The Renton Fire Department provides fire protection services from six locations: Fire Department Headquarters is located on the sixth floor of City Hall at 1055 Grady Way; Station 11 which is in the downtown area and serves the central part of the city; Station 12 which is located in Renton Highlands and serves the north and east portions of the city; Station 13 which is located in the Talbot Hill area and serves the southeast portion of the city; and Station 14 is located at Lind& S. 19th Street and serves the South portion of Renton. Additionally, King County Fire District 25 operationally is part of the Renton fire protection system; it serves the east portion of the city as well as portions of King County. Figure 13-1 on the following page shows the locations of the fire stations. Currently Station 11 is staffed by 9 personnel and is equipped with one engine company, one ladder company, one aid car and one command unit. Station 12 is staffed by 5 personnel and is equipped with one engine company and one aid car. Stations 13, 14, and 16 are staffed by three personnel and equipped with an engine and an aid unit. The City's water system is also a critical component of fire protection service. Currently all areas of the city are served by the city water system. Level of Service Historically, level of service for fire suppression has been measured in a variety of qualitative and quantitative terms. However, in the city's Fire Department Master Plan(1987) the primary level of service criteria were response time and fire flow. In the next capital facilities plan. there will be a shift in the placement of fire stations with a goal of providing a city wide fire and emergency service coverage net that maintains a 90`h percentile response goal. Meeting this goal will ensure that all citizens can expect the same response time 90% of the time. Response time is an important criterion for level of service because there is a direct relationship between both how long a fire bums and how long a person can survive with their heart beating. The ultimate goal of the fire and emergency service system is the preservation of human life. Obviously, the need to extinguish fires is also a criterion for measuring the level of service for the fire and emergency services system, as fire is one of the more likely causes of significant property damage in the city. Fire flow refers to the amount of water that is available to spray on a fire and extinguish it. Understandably, water is an essential element for fire suppression, and the hotter a fire, the more water that must be available to extinguish it. Determining what is adequate fire flow depends upon a building's type of construction, floor area, and use. For example, adequate fire flow in the city's water system for a single-family wood frame house is 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) whereas adequate fire flow for a shopping center or an industrial park is approximately 4,500 gpm. The third aspect of establishing level of service is personnel. Having trained firefighters in sufficient numbers is crucial to putting out a fire safely and efficiently. The city strives to comply with national standards relative to the staffing of fire apparatus as it is the placement of personnel at the location of the incident that for the basis for the success of the fire and emergency service delivery system. According to national standards: 1. Acceptable response time is defined as having the first responding unit arrives on the incident scene in within five minutes of receipt of the response 90% of the time. 2. Acceptable response time is for the basic firefighting force (15 personnel) is nine minutes from the receipt of the response 90% of the time. 3. Acceptable fire flow is defined as having water available to all parts of the city in sufficient quantity and pressure to extinguish the worst-case fire in an existing or projected land use. 4. Acceptable staffing is defined as having four firefighters on each piece of firefighting apparatus. NIll"' Though the goal of the city is to comply with nationally recognized standards, the ability to meet these standards is subject to resource availability at the time of an incident, rather than an absolute. 111-49 ATTACHMENT B Needed Capital Facilities and Funding P1an2007- 2012 With the exception of a few isolated small areas of the city, the five minute response time level of service standard is being met 63.8% of the time, which is 70.8% of the national standard. Similarly, the adequate fire flow level of service standard is being met city-wide. Generally, fire flows are adequate throughout the city, a long-range water system plan is being implemented to upgrade the few low fire flow areas, and development standards and review procedures are in place, which require that necessary fire suppression measures are made available for all new construction. In the east Renton area the agreement with Fire District 25 whereby the city has assumed operational control of that facility coupled with Station 12 and the water system plan for the area should assure that both response time and fire flow standards will be maintained. In the Kennydale area a new station 15 will be constructed over the next six years. The station will be staffed with four firefighters, seven days a week. This means an additional fifteen firefighters along with the purchase of equipment. The total project includes the purchase of land, design, construction, hiring personnel, and purchase of equipment. Presently the northerly portion of the area is within the ten-minute response time standard but outside of the five-minute response time standard for Station 12. Over the next six years, some single family and multi-family growth is projected for the Kennydale/Highlands area, as is some employment growth. This growth would increase somewhat the importance of providing improved service to the area in the near term. Given the residential and employment growth projected for the area after the year 2006, the importance of taking actions to improve the five-minute response time coverage increase substantially during that period. Land has been acquired to construct Fire Station#15 in the Kennydale area and there could be a need for an additional station in the eastern portion of the city on or near Duvall Avenue in north of NE 4th. The Fire Department is in the process of acquiring software that will help with this analysis. The City also anticipated improvements to Valley Communications Facilities over the next six years. Station 14 was built in the Valley industrial area to help handle the projected employment and multi-family growth for the area. In addition, there is still a need for a new facility for Station 13 due to its physical limitations in terms of its ability to accommodate the necessary equipment and personnel to maintain the current level of service standards as growth occurs. Station 13 was built as a temporary facility, until a current level of service standards as growth occurs. King County Fire District#40 has constructed a new state of the art facility in the Benson Hill potential annexation area. This will be inside Renton City limits should an annexation of this area occur. The Fire Depaitment is in discussions with King County Fire district#40 regarding a potential contract that would provide service to the district in the same way that services are provided to King County Fire District#25. Fig. 13-1 Existing and Proposed Fire Stations voile 11I-50 i S ATTACHMENT B 'ilrro l - City of Renton cl'' r//..•" i Fire Department a Station Locations Lake \\� Washington C-- FIRE E7 STATION . -.`- #12)1 _ —. o : 4 L� I 6 r g I Y g 1 € L_____] '90.101 P St .1:5 A ��_ °"a` 4s \‘`.. wo � dye L ' ■FIRE STATION r, Th �� mese }� EHL 1 i Y76 � 0 s FIRE �_ v �r 71, S STATION *Illie11) sw� St #17 ' p--1L__ _1, _„.?„, It WO" I \.- �' 1r.• s \\ . rte ad � FIRE= d #t 4 TIONy Q� i�-- So-me�Std 'r8 1 IIIIIII a w _ s : i ; iw FIRE vs � ¢ N S 1 ! STATION I IS 4111 St /J #13 sc vetrcnssr S7 11 I S te0t5s 179t5 ' SM fist SG 5 1.1ry 1 \_' 4 1 M t i 1 • ! I a � 8 ? ,Sr ' !f C✓ =: Technical Servicesi� a&nnlnnuLLc'forte l,'L i,ypApril CC507 1 L..i { I t Es E r i 111-51 r ' ATTACHMENT B 2007- 2012 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The Neighborhood Grant Program currently provides $50,000 to be distributed in small matching grants to *ale organized associations that from recognized geographic neighborhoods in Renton. The grant projects must be a benefit to the pubic, create physical improvements, build and enhance a neighborhood feature and be within Renton City limits. Over the next six years, the funding for this program is expected to increase to $110,000 by 2012. $1.5 million dollars of funding for infrastructure implementation in the Highlands Study Area has been set aside in City reserves. New development in this area will require additional investments to stimulate redevelopment. 111-52 --- p 2007'• $990 000 $390,000 2010 011 — 20121 tal — ^ ' — 2011, Total "3 ( (. ( Fire Station 13 • 2008% 2009t —1 — _ Y Table 13-1 i___ Items for 13 Development $350,000 $4,890,000 n 1 — $4 000 Fire Station 15 —---- I $1,3177000 '_ $4,500,000 __ __;__$4,850,000 7 Information Services Division $1,165,000 $1,081,000 I $719,000 ' $1,025,000 _ $5,30_6,000 Neighborhood Grant Program I $50,000 $75,000' _$75,000rt $__90,0001 $90,0001, $110,000 $490,000 2 Transportation Study _ $300,000 - I Total _.— — $1,667,000 $2,555,000 $9,531,000 $769,000 I $1,075,000 $50,000 $15,836,000 to 1 r— Funding Sources _ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Operating _ $1,667,000 $1,215,000 I $1,131,000 $769,000 $1,075,000 $50,000 $5,906,000 Undetermined � $1,340,000 ' $8,400,000 , Total $1,667,000 $2,555,000 $9,531,000 $769,000T$1,075,000 1 $50,000 $9,740,000 Z crQ Li") 4f r=- es, ^Y N C C ., O L.., i--+ , N .= n fD ATTACHMENT C LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS 1. Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed growth forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through implementation of the Growth Management Act. 2. Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents on the ground and for aircraft occupants. 3. Promote annexation where and when it is in the best interest of Renton. 4. Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. 5. Pursue the transition of non-conforming uses and structures to encourage more conforming uses and development patterns. 6. Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi-public service needs of present and future employees. 7. Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: a) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; b) Are walkable places where people can live, shop, play, and get to work 49401, without always having to drive; c) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; d) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; e) Are varied or unique in character; f) Support "grid" and "flexible grid" street and pathway patterns where appropriate; g) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; h) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and i) Provide a sense of home. 8. Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. 9. Support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for new commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use residential uses that enhance the City's employment and tax base along arterial boulevards and in designated development areas. Noiti ix-1 ATTACHIIENT C 10. Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial, high technology, office, and commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a strengthening of Renton's employment base. IX-2 7 � ATTACHMENT C I. REGIONAL GROWTH POLICIES Goal: Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed growth forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through implementation of the Growth Management Act. Discussion: "Capacity" is the room for growth provided by the plan. Targets are the politically determined share of growth assigned to each community in the region through the Countywide Planning Policies. Forecasts are the expected growth in the City based on regional employment and population modeling. The objective of this plan is to appropriately analyze regionally generated estimates of both forecast growth and targets and align those estimates with Renton's desire for economic growth and development. Renton has the local land use authority to provide sufficient capacity to meet and exceed both targets and forecast growth. Excess capacity can result in sprawl and discourage redevelopment of inefficient or out-dated land uses, while insufficient capacity can make development difficult due to high land cost. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan should provide sufficient direction to achieve a balance between excessive and insufficient capacity, in order to avoid difficulty in implementing the Plan. Responsibility for implementing the objectives and policies of the Regional Growth section of this pull lies primarily with the City of Renton. Objective LU-A: Plan for future urban development in the Renton Urban Growth Area (UGA) including the existing City and the unincorporated areas identified in Renton's Potential Annexation Areas (PAA). Nied Policy LU-1. Continue to refine the boundary of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) in cooperation with King County, based on the following criteria: 1) The UGA provides adequate land capacity for forecast growth; 2) Lands within the UGA are appropriate for urban development; and 3) Urban levels of service are required for existing and proposed land uses. Policy LU-2. Designate Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) as those portions of unincorporated King County outside the existing City limits, but within the Urban Growth Area, where: 1) Renton can logically provide urban services over the planning period; 2) Land use patterns support implementation of Renton's Urban Center objectives; and 3) Development meets overall standards for quality identified for city neighborhoods. Policy LU-3. Provide for land use planning and an overall growth strategy for both the City and land in the designated PAA as part of Renton's regional growth policies. Discussion: The Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies establish urban growth areas where urban levels of growth will occur within the *4001 IX-3 ATTACHMENT C subsequent 21-year period. These areas include existing cities and unincorporated areas. Within the Urban Growth Area, the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) is designated for Now future municipal expansion and governance. Policies guiding annexation and provision of services within the PAA are also located in the annexation portion of the Land Use Element; Utilities Element; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Element and Transportation Element. Objective LU-B: Evaluate and implement growth targets consistent with the Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies. Policy LU-4. Adopt the following growth targets for the period from 2001 to 2022, consistent with the targets adopted for the region by the Growth Management Planning Council for the 2002 Renton City limits and Potential Annexation Areas: 1) City of Renton Housing: 6,198 units 2) City of Renton Jobs: 27,597 jobs 3) Potential Annexation Area 1-lousing 1,976 units 4) Potential Annexation Area Jobs: 458 jobs Policy LU-5. Amend growth targets as annexation occurs to transfer a proportionate share of Potential Annexation Area targets into Renton's targets. fir+' Objective LU-C: Ensure sufficient land capacity to accommodate forecast housing and job growth and targets mandated by the Growth Management Act for the next twenty-one years (2001-2022). Policy LU-7. Plan for residential and employment growth based on growth targets established in the Countywide Planning Policies, as a minimum. (See Housing Element Goals and Capacity section and Capital Facilities Element, Policy CFP-1 and Growth Projection section. Policy LU-8. Provide sufficient land, appropriately zoned, so capacity exceeds targets by at least twenty percent (20%). Policy LU-9. Encourage infill development as a means to increase capacity for single- family units within the existing city limits. Policy LU-10. Use buildable lands data and market analysis to establish adopted capacity for either jobs or housing within each adopted zoning classification. Policy LU-11. Minimum density requirements shall be established to ensure that land development practices result in an average development density in each land use designation sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and create greater efficiency in the Now, provision of urban services. IX--t 1 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-12. Minimum density requirements should: 1) Be based on net land area; 2) Be required in residential zones, with the exception of the Resource Conservation, Residential 1, and Residential 4 zones, 3) Not be required of individual portions or lots within a project; 4) May be reduced due to lot configuration, lack of access, or physical constraints; and 5) Not be applied to construction of a single dwelling unit on a pre-existing legal lot or renovation of existing structures. Policy LU-13. Phasing, shadow-platting, or land reserves should be used to ensure that minimum density can eventually be achieved within proposed developments. Adequate access to potential future development on the site must be ensured. Proposed development should not preclude future additional development. Policy LU-14. Parking should not be considered as a land reserve for future development, except within the Urban Center. Policy LU-15. Amend capacity estimates as annexation and re-zonings occur. Objective LU-D: Maintain a high ratio of jobs to housing in Renton. Policy LU-16. Future residential and employment growth within Renton's planning area should meet the goal of two jobs for each housing unit. Policy LU-17. Sufficient quantities of land should be designated to accommodate the desired single family/multi-family mix outside the Urban Center, and provide for commercial and industrial uses necessary to provide for expected job growth. Policy LU-18. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the design, size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with residential uses. Discussion: The ratio of new jobs to new housing units will affect the future character of the City. Renton currently is an employment center with a high jobs/housing ratio characterized by a high level of daytime activity, a high demand for infrastructure, a high tax base, and a high volume of commuter traffic. Renton's current ratio of jobs to housing units is roughly 2.1 jobs per 1 housing unit. Within King County, the overall ratio is about 1.5 jobs per 1 housing unit. Forecasts from the Puget Sound Regional Council indicate that there will be an even greater number of new jobs within Renton than new housing over the next 20 years. This will increase the discrepancy between jobs and housing units within the City. However, the number of housing units in the unincorporated areas within Renton's Potential IX-5 ATTACHMENT C Annexation Area is expected to grow faster than jobs so that the balance of jobs to housing will be maintained within the City limits and the Potential Annexation Areas. Now Now Now IX-6 1 1 ATTACHMENT C II. AIRPORT AIRPORT COMPATIBLE LAND USE POLICIES Goal: Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents on the ground and for aircraft occupants. Discussion: In order to meet a mandate of the Growth Management Act, the City of Renton has developed a set of objectives and policies to address land use compatibility between the Renton Municipal Airport and an area of the City known as the Airport Influence Area (see RMC 4-3-020). Renton's approach to planning for minimization of risk associated with potential aviation incidents was to analyze four primary categories of aviation operations in relation to land use compatibility. The categories used are, 1) general aviation safety, 2) airspace protection, 3) aviation noise, and 4) overflight. A "compatibility objective" was developed for each, with strategies to meet the objective, and measurement criteria to ensure that the objective is met. The objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, with the implementation included in the Development Regulations (RMC 4-3-020) meet the state requirement of GMA and the goal of this section. Responsibility for implementing the Airport Compatible Land Use objectives and policies is shared by the City of Renton, proponents of projects within the Airport Influence Area, and the aviation community. General Aviation Safety Objective LU-E: Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents. Policy LU-19. Adopt an airport compatible land use program for the Renton Airport Influence Area, including an Airport Influence Area Map. Policy LU-20. Develop performance-based criteria for land use compatibility with aviation activity. Policy LU-21. In the Airport Influence Area, adopt use restrictions, as appropriate, that meet or exceed basic aviation safety considerations. Airspace Protection Objective LU-F: Reduce obstacles to aviation in proximity to Renton Municipal Airport. Policy LU-22. Require that submittal requirements for proposed land use actions disclose potential conflicts with airspace. IX-7 � t ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-23. Provide maximum protection to Renton airspace from obstructions to aviation. Policy LU-24. Prohibit buildings, structures, or other objects from being constructed or altered so as to project or otherwise penetrate the airspace surfaces, except as necessary and incidental to airport operations. Aviation Noise Objective LU-G: Address impacts of aviation noise that is at a level deemed to be a health hazard or disruptive of noise-sensitive activities. Policy LU-25. Prohibit the location of noise-sensitive land uses from areas of high noise levels, defined by the 65 DNL (or higher) noise contour of the Renton Municipal Airport. Policy LU-26. Within the Airport Influence Area require disclosure notice for potential negative impacts from aviation operation and noise, unless mitigated by other measures. Policy LU-27. Residential use and/or density of new structures should be limited, within the Runway Protection Zone and the Runway Sideline Zone to reduce negative impacts on residents from aviation operation noise. Implementing code will be put in place by November 2007. Policy LU-28. Non-residential use and/or intensity may be limited, if such uses are ''ow deemed to be noise sensitive, to reduce negative impacts on users from aviation operation noise. Policy LU-29. Approval of residential land use or other land uses where noise-sensitive activities may occur should require dedication of avigation easements and use of acoustic materials for structures. Policy LU-30. Require master planning of land to increase land use compatibility through sound attenuation in the environment and techniques such as: • Place uses with highest sensitivity to noise at greater distances, in consideration of the factor of distance from the source. • Consider creation of micro-climates to utilize mitigating meteorological conditions (i.e. air temperature, wind direction and velocity). • Create soft ground surfaces, such as vegetative ground cover, rather than hard surfaces. • Provide at appropriate heights, structures, terrain, or other barriers to provide attenuation of sound. Overflight Objective LU-H: In the Airport Influence Area, address impacts of overflight that are disruptive. r IX-8 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-31. At the time of land use approval (i.e. subdivision of land) avigation easements should be granted to the City in areas of Renton subject to negative aircraft overflight impacts. Policy LU-32. At the time of land use approval (i.e. subdivision of land) deed notices should be recorded in areas of Renton subject to negative aircraft overflight impacts. Policy LU-33. The City should establish a presence on noise-abatement review committees, or similar forums, and request notification of noise-abatement procedures at nearby airports that may have aircraft that impact Renton. Policy LU-34. The City should provide information to Renton citizens of noise complaint procedures to follow for reporting negative impacts from overflights associated with not only Renton Airport, but also Seattle Tacoma International Airport and King County International Airport. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption date of GMA update. NtiS Ned IX-9 ATTACHMENT C III. ANNEXATIONS .401120, Goal: Promote annexation where and when it is in the best interest of Renton. Discussion: The growth of the City through annexation is expected to continue throughout the planning cycle. The policies in this section are intended to guide the annexation process. The City recognizes that fiscal impact is only one of many criteria to be evaluated, and must be balanced with other annexation policy goals, such as transition to urban land use, protection of sensitive areas, provision of public service, governmental structure, provision of infrastructure, aquifer protection, and community identity. Responsibility for implementing annexation objectives and the policies lies primarily with the City of Renton. Objective LU-I: Support annexation of county areas that are identified as being within the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area and can be efficiently provided with infrastructure and City services, are urban separators, or have environmental constraints. Policy LU-35. The City will continue to recognize that it has an inherent interest in future land use decisions affecting its Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-36. Encourage annexation where the availability of infrastructure and services allow for the development of urban densities. Renton should be the primary service provider of urban infrastructure and public services in its Potential Annexation Area, provided that the City can offer such services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Itar Policy LU-37. The highest priority areas for annexation to the City of Renton should be those contiguous with the boundaries of the City such as: 1) Peninsulas and islands of unincorporated land where Renton is the logical service provider; 2) Neighborhoods where municipal services have already been extended; 3) Lands subject to development pressure that might benefit from City Development Standards; 4) Developed areas where urban services are needed to correct degradation of natural resources, such as aquifer recharge areas; 5) Lands that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive plan, zoning, and subdivision regulations; and 6) Developed areas where Renton is able to provide basic urban services and local governance to an existing population. Objective LU-J: Promote annexations that would maintain the quality of life in the re- sultant City of Renton, making the City a good place to, live, work play, shop, and raise families. Policy LU-38. Support annexations that would result in future improvements to City services or eliminate duplication by service providers. Services include water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation, park and open space, library, and public safety. 4400, Ix-10 � L ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-39. Support annexations that complement the jobs and housing goals adopted in the Regional Growth Strategy. Nwid Policy LU-40. Support annexations that would simplify governmental structure by consolidating multiple services under a single or reduced number of service providers. Policy LU-41. Promote annexations of developed areas with a residential population already using City services or impacting City infrastructure. Policy LU-42. Support annexations of lower density areas where it would protect natural resources or provide urban separator areas. Objective LU-K: Create city boundaries through annexations that facilitate the efficient delivery of emergency and public services. Policy LU-43. The proposed annexation boundary should be defined by the following characteristics: 1) Annexation of territory that is adjacent to the existing City limits; in general, the more land adjacent to the City the more favorable the annexation; 2) Inclusion of unincorporated islands and peninsulas; 3) Use of natural or manmade boundaries that are readily identifiable in the field, such as wetlands, waterways, ridges, park property, roads/freeways, and railroads; 4) Inclusion/exclusion of an entire neighborhood, rather than dividing portions of the neighborhood between City and County jurisdictions; and 5) Inclusion of natural corridors either as greenbelts or urban separators between the City and adjacent jurisdictions. yid Policy LU-44. Existing land uses and developmentor redevelopment potential should be considered when evaluating a proposed annexation. Policy LU-45. Commercial uses that do not conform to Renton's land use plan should be encouraged to transition into conforming uses or to relocate to areas with compatible land use designations. Illegal uses not listed under King County zoning should be required to cease and desist upon annexation. Policy LU-46. Annexation proposals should include areas that would result in City control over land uses along major entrance corridors to the City ("Gateways"). Policy LU-47. Boundaries of individual annexations will not be reconsidered to exclude reluctant property owners, if the annexation is consistent with land use, environmental protection policies, and the efficient delivery of services. Objective LU-L: Protect the environmental quality of Renton by annexing lands where future development and land use activity could otherwise adversely impact natural and urban systems. Policy LU-48. Shoreline Master Program land use designations, including those for associated wetlands, should be established during the annexation process. Ix-1 I ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-49. Annexations should be pursued in areas that lie within existing, emerging, or prospective aquifer recharge zones, that currently or potentially supply domestic water to the City and are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-50. Zoning should be applied to areas for purposes of resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation process. Objective LU-M: Promote a regional approach for development review through the use of interlocal agreements to ensure that land development policies in King County are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and City of Renton development standards. This policy should be implemented within five years of the adoption date of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-51. Urban development within Renton's Potential Annexation Area should not occur without annexation unless there is an interlocal agreement with King County defining land use, zoning, annexation phasing, urban services, street and other design standards, and impact mitigation requirements. Policy LU-52. Long-range planning and the development of capital improvement programs for transportation, storm water, water, and sewer services should be coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions, special districts, and King County. Policy LU-53. Interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions should be pursued to develop solutions to regional concerns including, but not limited to water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation, park and open space, development review, and public safety. Objective LU-N: Provide full and complete evaluation of annexation proposals by relevant departments and divisions upon the submission of the annexation proposal. Policy LU-54. Appropriate zoning districts should be designated for property in an annexation proposal. Zoning in the annexation territory should be consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designations. Policy LU-55. Larger annexations should be encouraged, when appropriate, in order to realize efficiencies in the use of City resources. Policy LU-56. Annexations should be expanded if they include areas surrounded by the City on three or more sides or if they include properties with recorded covenants to annex. Policy LU-57. The City should respond to community initiatives and actively assist owners and residents with initiating and completing the annexation process. Policy LU-58. The City should ensure that property owners and residents in and around the affected area(s) are notified of the obligations and requirements that may be imposed upon them as a result of annexation. Policy LU-59. The City should work with potential annexation proponents to develop acceptable annexation boundaries. Ix-12 • ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-60. The City should conduct a fiscal impact assessment of the costs to provide service and of the tax revenues that would be generated in each area proposed for annexation. 40.0 Nvid IX-13 I ATTACHMENT C IV. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Goal: Maintain the City's cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. Discussion: Renton has a rich and interesting history as a community. It was the site of an established Native American settlement and changed through the years of early European immigration into a pioneer town. The City incorporated in 1901 and later became a major regional employment center and residential area. The following policies are intended to guide efforts to recognize and integrate Renton's past into future development as the City evolves into a dynamic urban community. Objective LU-O: Communicate Renton's history by protecting historic and archaeological sites and structures when appropriate and as opportunities arise. Policy LU-61. Historic resources should continue to be identified and mapped within the City as an on-going process. Policy LU-62. Cultural resources should be identified by project proponents when applying for land use approval, as part of the application submitted for review. Policy LU-63. Potentially adverse impacts on cultural resources deemed to be significant lour- should be mitigated as a condition of project approval. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-64. The City should work cooperatively with King County by exchanging resource infoi illation pertaining to natural and cultural resources. Policy LU-65. Historical and archaeological sites, identified as significant by the City of Renton, should be preserved and/or incorporated into development projects. Policy LU-66. Downtown buildings and site development proposals should be encouraged to incorporate displays about Renton's history, including prominent families and individuals, businesses, and events associated with downtown's past. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. IX-14 ATTACHMENT C V. NON-CONFORMING USE Goal: Pursue the transition of non-conforming uses and structures to encourage more conforming uses and development patterns. Discussion: As a community grows, changes in land use policies sometimes result in "non-conforming uses" as remnants of an earlier land use pattern. Some of these non- conforming uses can retain a viable economic life for long periods of time and even become desirable reminders of the evolution of the City. These policies are intended to guide decision-making about non-conforming uses and structures in the context of current land use policy. Responsibility for implementing the objectives and policies of this section lies primarily with the City of Renton. Objective LU-P: Evaluate requests for rebuilding of non-conforming uses beyond normal maintenance where they can be made more conforming and are compatible with their surroundings. Policy LU-67. Encourage compatibility between non-conforming uses and structures and conforming uses in neighborhoods that have significant numbers of non-confoiniing uses. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-68. Encourage developments that increase the number of conforming uses and structures. Policy LU-69. Transition of uses and structures from non-conforming to those that conform to zoning and development standards should be implemented in a manner that recognizes the overall character of the neighborhood. hnplementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. IX-15 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-70. Evaluate permits for non-conforming uses, based on the following criteria: %rr► 1) Relationship of the existing non-conforming use or structure to its surroundings; 2) The compatibility of the non-conforming use with its context and other uses in the area; 3) Demonstrated community need for the use at its present location; 4) Concentration of the use within the City or within the area; 5) Suitability of the existing location; 6) Demonstration that the use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc., (i.e. does not exceed normal levels in these areas emanating from surrounding permitted uses); 7) Whether the use was associated with a historical event or activity in the community and as a result has historical significance; 8) Whether the use provides substantial benefit to the community because of either the employment of a large number of people in the community or whether it generates considerable revenues to the City; and 9) Whether retention of the use due to current market conditions would not impede or delay the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Objective LU-Q: Ensure that the effects of non-conforming structures on character of the conforming patterns of Renton's neighborhoods are minimized. Policy LU-71. Evaluate applications to repair or expand non-conforming structures based on the following factors: 1) Whether it represents a unique regional or national architectural style or an innovation in architecture, use of materials, or functional arrangement, and/or is one of the few remaining examples of such a style or innovation, 2 Whether it is part of a unified streetscape of similar structures that is unlikely to be replicated, unless the subject structure is rebuilt per, or similar to, its original plan; 3) Whether redevelopment of the site with a confoiming structure is unlikely; and 4) The structure has been well-maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety, or it could be retrofitted so as not to pose such a threat. IX-16 � 1 ATTACHMENT C VI. PUBLIC FACILITIES Goal: Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi-public service needs of present and future employees. Discussion: The purpose of these policies is to address the aspect of a public/quasi public use that is not addressed in the pertinent land use policies. Public facilities, also includes quasi-public uses such as cultural and religious facilities. Facilities discussed in this section vary widely in their size, function, service area, and impacts. For that reason, these policies are aimed at addressing the generic impacts of all of the facilities and the specific impacts of each. (Renton Technical College and Valley Medical Center are also addressed in the Commercial Corridor section of the Land Use Element.) Responsibility for implementing this objective and the following policies lies primarily with the City of Renton. Objective LU-R: Locate and plan for public facilities in ways that benefit a broad range of potential public uses. Policy LU-72. Facilities should be located within walking distance of an existing or planned transit stop. Policy LU-73. Primary vehicular access to sites should be from principal or minor arterial streets. Policy LU-74. Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian-oriented. Policy LU-75. Manage public lands to protect and preserve the public trust. Policy LU-76. Sites that are underused or developed with obsolete public uses should be considered for another public use prior to changing uses or ownership. Policy LU-77. Surplus public sites should be considered for alternative types of public use prior to sale or lease. Policy LU-78. A public involvement process should be established to review proposals to change uses of surplus public properties. Policy LU-79. Guide and modify development of essential public facilities to meet Comprehensive Plan policies and to mitigate impacts and costs to the City. Policy LU-80. Use public processes and create criteria to identify essential public facilities. Public processes should include notification, hearings, and citizen involvement. Criteria should be developed to review and assess proposals for public facilities. Noild IX-17 ATTACHMENT C Objective LU-S: Site and design municipal facilities to provide the most efficient and convenient service for people while minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding uses. Policy LU-81. Public amenity features (e.g. plazas, trails, art work) should be incorporated into municipal projects. Policy LU-82. Municipal government functions that are people-intensive should be centrally located in or near the Urban Center. Policy LU-83. Fire stations should be located on principal or minor arterials. Policy LU-84. Future fire stations should be sited central to their service area with as few barriers as possible in order to achieve best possible response times. Policy LU-85. Land for future fire stations should be acquired in advance in areas where the greatest amount of development is anticipated. Policy LU-86. Site and building design of police facilities providing direct service to the general public should be easily accessible. Policy LU-87. Major functions of the police should be centralized in or near the Urban Center. Policy LU-88. Satellite police facilities may be located outside of the Urban Center. `fir Objective LU-T: Site and design regional facilities to provide the most efficient and convenient service for people while minimizing the adverse impacts on adjacent uses and the City Urban Center. Policy LU-89. Regional facilities that provide services on-site to the public on a daily basis (i.e. office uses) should be located in the City's Urban Center. Policy LU-90. Siting of regional facilities that are specialized (e.g. landfills, maintenance shops) or serve a limited segment of the population (e.g.justice centers) should rely more strongly on the special locational needs of the facility and the compatibility of the facility with surrounding uses. Objective LU-U: Preserve the cultural amenities and heritage of Renton. Policy LU-91. The downtown library should continue to be the main facility for the City. Policy LU-92. When branch libraries are developed, they should be located to provide convenient access to a majority of their users. 'fir IX-18 • ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-93. Future branch libraries and other satellite services may be located in mixed-use developments to serve concentrations of users in those areas. Objective LU-V: Assure adequate land and infrastructure at appropriate locations for development and expansion of facilities to serve the educational needs of area residents and protect adjacent uses from impacts of these more intensive uses. Policy LU-94. Post secondary(beyond high school) and other regional educational facilities that require sites larger than five acres should be located in the Employment Area— Industrial, Employment Area—Valley, Commercial/Office/Residential, or the Urban Center designations. Policy LU-95. Alternative funding sources (e.g. impact fees) should be explored for facilities necessitated by new development. Policy LU-96. Schools in residential neighborhoods should consider mitigating adverse impacts to the surrounding area in site planning and operations. Policy LU-97. The City and the school district should jointly develop multiple-use facilities (e.g. playgrounds, sports fields) whenever practical. Policy LU-98. Community use of school sites and facilities for non-school activities should be encouraged. Policy LU-99. School facilities that are planned for closure, should be considered for potential public use before being sold for private development. Policy LU-100. Elementary schools should be located near a collector arterial street. Policy LU-101. Safe pedestrian access to schools should be promoted (e.g. through pedestrian linkages, safety features) through the design of new subdivisions and roadway improvements. Policy LU-102. Vehicular access to middle schools, senior high schools and other large- scale facilities (e.g. bus maintenance shops, sports facilities) should be from arterial streets. Objective LU-`V: Assure that adequate land and infrastructure are available for the development and expansion of facilities to serve the health care needs of the area. Policy LU-103. Health and/or medical facilities larger than five acres should be located in portions of the Commercial Corridor designation mapped with Commercial Office zoning, Employment Area—Valley, Commercial/Office/Residential or the Urban Centers designations. Smaller scale facilities should locate in the Commercial Arterial portions of Commercial Corridor. Objective LU-X: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner that provides convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. IX-19 1 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-104. When locating in predominantly residential areas, religious facilities should be on the periphery of the residential area rather than the interior. err. Policy LU-105. Parking should be provided on-site and buffered from adjacent uses. Policy LU-106. Large-scale facilities should be encouraged to locate contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Policy LU-107. Religious facilities should be located on and have direct access to either an arterial or collector street. Objective LU-Y: Accommodate large, commercial recreational uses that depend on open land and are intended to serve regional users. Policy LU-108. Commercial, regional recreational uses should be located contiguous to a principal arterial in areas with immediate access to an interstate or a state route. Policy LU-109. Commercial recreational uses should be located outside of the trade area of other commercial recreational areas offering similar recreational opportunities. Policy LU-110. Vehicular access to a commercial recreational site should be from a principal arterial street with the number of access points minimized. IX-20 ATTACHMENT C VII. RESOURCE LAND Goal: Maintain the City's agricultural and mining resources as part of Renton's cultural history. Discussion: Renton is an urban community with a rich history based on industrial and agricultural uses that is now transitioning into a vibrant urban center. Some agricultural resource-based uses remain in environmentally sensitive areas of the Potential Annexation Area and in Residential Low Density Designations or on vacant land in commercial areas. Current policies recognize these existing uses and encourage them as cultural resources where they may be appropriate. Responsibility for implementing the objectives and policies of this section lies primarily with the City of Renton. Objective LU-Z: Maintain existing commercial and hobby agricultural uses such as small farms, hobby farms, horticulture, beekeeping, kennels, and stables, that are compatible with urban development. Allow sale of products produced on site. Policy LU-111. Prohibit commercial agricultural uses that are industrial or semi- industrial in nature, and create nuisances such as odor or noise that may be incompatible with residential use. Policy LU-112. Limit access of large domestic animals to shorelines and wetlands. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-113. Control impacts of crop and animal raising on surface and ground water. Policy LU-114. Encourage public and private recreational uses in agricultural areas. Policy LU-115. Allow cultivation and sale of flowers, herbs, vegetables, or similar crops in residential areas, as an accessory use and/or home occupation. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-116. Recognize and allow community gardens on private property, vacant public property, and unused rights-of-ways. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Objective LU-AA: Maintain extractive industries where their continued operation does not impact adjacent residential areas, the City's aquifer, or other critical areas. Policy LU-117. Extractive industries including timber, sand, gravel and other mining within the City's Potential Annexation Area should be mapped and appropriately zoned IX-21 A UI ACHMENT C upon annexation to the City. Policies governing these sites should be consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan. Nome Policy LU-118. Mining and processing of minerals and materials should be allowed within the City subject to applicable City ordinances, environmental perfoiniance standards. Policy LU-119. Extractive sites, when mined out, should be graded and restored for future development compatible with land use designations for adjacent sites. Implementing code will be in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-120. New plats adjacent to operating extractive sites should carry a notice on the face of the plat specifying the impacts that are expected from the extractive use: potential dust, noise, traffic, light and glare. Policy LU-121. Hours of operation of extractive uses should be based on impacts to adjacent uses. Policy LU-122. The City should apply conditional use permits or other approvals as appropriate for mineral extraction and processing when: 1) The proposed site contains rock, sand, gravel, coal, oil, gas, or other mineral resources, *ow 2) The proposed site is large enough to confine or mitigate all operational impacts, 3) The proposal will allow operation with limited conflicts with adjacent land uses when mitigating measures are applied, and; 4) Roads or rail facilities serving or proposed to serve the site can safely and adequately handle transport of products and are in close proximity to the site. IX-22 ATTACHMENT C VIII. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES Goal: Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: a) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; b) Are walkable places where people can shop, play, and get to work without always having to drive; c) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; d) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; e) Are varied or unique in character; f) Support "grid" and "flexible grid" street and pathway patterns where appropriate; g) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; h) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and i) Provide a sense of home. Discussion: The purpose of the Residential policies is to provide a citywide residential growth strategy. The Residential policies address the location of housing development, housing densities, non-residential uses allowed in residential areas, site design, and housing types in neighborhoods. (See Public Facilities Section for policies on schools, NIS churches, and other facilities in residential areas. See Housing Element for policies relating to housing types and neighborhoods and the Community Design Element for policies guiding quality design.) Responsibility for residential objectives and policies lies with the City of Renton for implementation and the development community, which should propose projects that meet the residential goals, objectives, and policies of the City. Objective LU-BB: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton and the Potential Annexation Area that: 1) Supports transit by providing urban densities, 2) Promotes efficient land utilization, and 3) Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features. Policy LU-123. Pursue multiple strategies for residential growth including: 1) Development of new neighborhoods on larger land tracts on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown; 2) Infill development on vacant and underutilized parcels in Renton's established neighborhoods; 3) Multi-family development located in Renton's Urban Center; IX-23 ATTACHMENT C 4) Infill in existing multi-family areas; and 5) Mixed-use projects and multi-family development in Commercial/Office/Residential and Commercial Corridors Land Use designations. Policy LU-124. Promote the timely and logical progression of residential development. Priority for higher density development should be given to development of land with infrastructure capacity and land located closer to the City's Urban Center. Policy LU-125. Encourage a citywide mix of housing types including: 1) Large-lot single family; 2) Small-lot single family; 3) Small-scale and large-scale rental and condominium multi-family housing; and 4) Residential/commercial mixed-use development. Objective LU-CC: Maintain the goal of a fifty-fifty ratio of single family to multi- family housing outside of the Urban Center. Policy LU-126. A maximum of fifty percent (50%) of future residential land capacity should occur in multi-family housing in parts of the City and PAA located outside of the Urban Center. Policy LU-127. Infrastructure impacts of the goal of 50/50 ratio of single-family to multi-family outside the Urban Center should be evaluated as part of the City's Capital Nor Improvements program. Policy LU-128. Multi-family unit types arc encouraged as part of mixed-use developments in the Urban Center, Center Village, Commercial/Office/Residential, and the Commercial Corridor Land Use designations. Policy LU-129. Small-lot, single-family infill developments and plats should be supported as alternatives to multi-family development to both increase the City's supply of single-family detached housing and provide homeownership opportunities. Policy LU-130. Adopt urban density of at least four(4) dwelling units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. Policy LU-131. Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Policy LU-132. Discourage creation of socio-economic enclaves, especially where lower income units would be segregated within a development. New IX-24 ANL ATTACHMENT C RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Ned Purpose Statement: Policies in this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. Lands that are not appropriate for urban levels of development are designated either Resource Conservation or Residential Low Density Zoning. Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance, are zoned Residential 4. Lands developed with existing manufactured home parks that provide a transition to adjacent Rural Areas and/or are adjacent to critical areas but were established uses in King County prior to annexation may be considered for Residential Manufactured Home Park zoning. Objective LU-DD: Provide for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features, providing urban separators, and/or providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County. Policy LU-133. Identify and map areas of the City where environmentally sensitive .Si areas such as 100-year floodplains, floodways, and hazardous landslide and erosion areas are extensive and the application of critical areas regulations alone is insufficient to guide future development. Policy LU-134. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres (Resource Conservation) to 1 home per acre (Residential 1) on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre (Residential 4) on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate except as provided in Policy LU- 134a. Policy LU-134a A density exception to the 4 dwelling unit per acre maximum is allowed for pre-existing manufactured home parks within the Residential Low Density designation. Upon cessation of the manufactured home park use, these properties should be considered for Residential 4 zoning. Policy LU-135. For the purpose of mapping four dwelling units per net acre (4-du/ac) zoned areas as contrasted with lower density Residential 1 (R-1) and Resource Conservation (RC) areas, the prevalence of significant environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean: IX-25 ATTACHMENT C 1) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area; 2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur '`one on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist; 3) The location of the sensitive area results in a non-contiguous development pattern; 4) The area is a designated urban separator; or 5) Application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setbacks/buffers and/or net density definition would create a situation where the allowed density could not be accommodated on the remaining net developable area without modifications or variances to other standards. Implementation of this policy should be phased in within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-136. Rural activities, such as agricultural and animal husbandry, should be allowed. Policy LU-137. Warehousing, outdoor storage, equipment yards, and industrial uses should not be allowed. Where such uses exist as non-conforming uses, measures should be taken to negotiate the transition of these uses as residential redevelopment occurs. Policy LU-138. To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered and/or lot sizes reduced within allowed density levels in Residential Low Density designations. Implementation of this policy should be phased in within two years of the adoption of the Now 2004 Update. Policy LU-139. Minimize impacts of animal and crop-raising on adjacent residential uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers. Policy LU-140. Control scale and density of accessory buildings and barns to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. Policy LU-141. Residential Low Density areas may be incorporated into Urban Separators. Policy LU-142. Undeveloped portions of Residential Low Density areas may be considered for designation of trail easements or other public benefits through agreements with private parties. Objective LU-EE: Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings. Policy LU-143. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Niatiw IX-26 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-144. Ensure quality development by supporting site plans and plats that incorporate quality building and landscaping standards. *440104 Policy LU-145. Interpret development standards to support projects with higher quality housing by requiring: 1) A variety of compatible housing styles making up block fronts; 2) Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs, roof overhangs, and/or decorative cornices, fenestration and trim; and 3) Building modulation and use of durable exterior materials such as wood, masonry, stucco, or brick. Policy LU-146. Interpret development standards to support provision of landscape features as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include: 1) Attractive residential streetscapes with landscaped front yards that are visible from the street; 2) Landscaping, preferably with drought- resistant evergreen plant materials; 3) Large caliper street trees; 4) Irrigated landscape planting strips; 5) Low-impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious surfaces; and 6) Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Land designated Residential Single Family is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single- family living environments. Policies in this section are to be considered together with the policies in the Regional Growth, Residential Growth Strategy section of the Land Use Element, the Community Design Element, and the Housing Element. Policies are implemented with R-8 zoning. Objective LU-FF: Encourage re-investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that: 1) Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets, 2) Promote expansion and use of public transportation; and 3) Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per net acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Ned IX-27 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-148. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in-fill parcels of less than one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in single-family designations. Allow a reduction in lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than one acre to create an incentive for aggregation of land. The minimum lot size is not intended to set the standard for density in the designation, but to provide flexibility in subdivision/plat design and facilitate development within the allowed density range. Policy LU-149. Lot size should exclude private sidewalks, easements, private road, and driveway easements, except alley easements. Policy LU-150. Required setbacks should exclude public or private legal access areas, established through or to a lot, and to parking areas. Policy LU-151. Maximum height of structures should not exceed two (2) stories in single-family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-152. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities. Policy LU-152.1: Variances to standards in LU-152 should not be granted to facilitate additional density on an infill site. Nro"" Policy LU-153. Interpret development standards to support plats designed to incorporate vehicular and pedestrian connections between plats and neighborhoods. Small projects composed of single parcels and/or multiple parcels of insufficient size to provide such connections, should include future street stubs. Future street connections should be clearly identified to notify residents of future roadway connections. Policy LU-154. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs incorporating street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Policy LU-155. New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts between old and new development patterns. However, strict adherence to older standards is not required. Policy LU-156. Interpret development standards to support projects incorporating site features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes that can be retained to enhance neighborhood character and preserve property values where possible. Replanting should occur where trees are not retained due to safety concerns. Retention of unique site features should be balanced with the objective of investing in neighborhoods within the overall context of the Vision Statement of this Comprehensive Plan. Now IX-28 r ATTACHMENT C RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The Residential Medium Density designation is intended to create 'void the opportunity for neighborhoods that offer a variety of lot sizes, housing, and ownership options. Residential Medium Density neighborhoods should include a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single-family and multi-family developments, support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill development, encourage use of transit service, and promote the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Objective LU-GG: Designate land for Residential Medium Density(RMD) where access, topography and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single-family and multi-family developments, and to support cost-efficient housing, infill development, transit service, and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-157. Residential Medium Density designated areas should be zoned for either Residential 10 dwelling units per net acre (R-10), Residential 14 dwelling units per net acre (R-14), or new zoning designations that allow housing in this density range. Policy LU-158. Residential Medium Density neighborhoods may be considered for Residential 10 (R-10) zoning if they meet three of the following criteria: 1) The area already has a mix of small-scale multi-family units or has had long standing zoning for flats or other low-density multi-family use; 2) Development patterns conducive to medium-density development are established; 3) Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential for medium-density infill development; 4) The project site is adjacent to major arterial(s) and public transit service is located within 1/4 mile; 5) The site can be buffered from existing single-family residential neighborhoods having densities of eight (8) dwelling units or less; or 6) The site can be buffered from adjacent or abutting incompatible uses. Policy LU-159. Areas may be considered for Residential 14 (R-14) zoning where the site meets the following criteria: 1) Adjacent to major arterial(s); 2) Adjacent to the Urban Center, Highlands Center Village, or Commercial Corridor designations; 3) Part of a designation totaling over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownership); 4) Site is buffered from single-family areas or other existing, potentially incompatible uses; and IX-29 ATTACHMENT C 5) Development within the density range and of similar unit type is achievable given environmental constraints. Policy LU-160. Support projects that create neighborhoods with diverse housing types that achieve continuity through the organization of roads, sidewalks, blocks, setbacks, community gathering places, and amenity features. Policy LU-161. Support residential development incorporating a hierarchy of streets. Street networks should connect through the development to existing streets, avoid "cul- de-sac" or dead end streets, and be arranged in a grid street pattern (or a flexible grid street system if there are environmental constraints). Policy LU-162. Development densities in the Residential Medium Density designation area should range from seven (7) to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre, as specified by implementing zoning. Policy LU-163. For attached or semi-attached development in the R-14 zoned portions of the Residential Medium Density designation, a bonus density of four (4) additional dwelling units per acre should be available, subject to Density Bonus Review and other applicable development conditions. Policy LU-164. When a minimum density is applicable, the minimum development density in the Residential Medium Density designation should be four (4) dwelling units per net acre. *ow- Objective LU-HH: Residential Medium Density designations should be areas where creative approaches to housing density can be implemented. Policy LU-165. Provision of small lot, single-family detached unit types, townhouses, and multi-family structures compatible with a single-family character should be allowed and encouraged in the Residential Medium Density designation, provided that density standards can be met (see also the Housing Element for housing types). Policy LU-166. Very small-lot, single-family housing, such as cottages, zero-lot line detached, semi-detached, townhouses, and small scale multi-family units should be allowed in the Residential Medium Density!` designation in order to provide a wide range typeQ TPnplpmentirlaa nde will 1�1P put in place within three ve rc of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-167. A range and variety of lot sizes and building densities should be encouraged. Policy LU-168. Residential developments should include public amenities that function as a gathering place within the development and should include features such as a public square, open space, park, civic or commercial uses in the R-14 zone. The central place should include amenities for passive recreation such as benches and fountains and be unified by a design motif or common theme. Sr IX-30 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-169. Residential Medium Density site development plans having attached or semi-attached housing types should reflect the following criteria for projects: 1) Parking should be encouraged in the rear or side yards or under the structure; 2) Structures should be located on lots or arranged in a manner to appear like a platted development to ensure adequate light and air, and views (if any) are preserved between lots or structures; 3) Buildings should be massed in a manner that promotes a pedestrian scale with a small neighborhood feeling; 4) Each dwelling unit should have an identifiable entrance and front on streets rather than courtyards and parking lots; 5) Fences may be constructed if they contribute to an open, spacious feeling between units and structures; and 6) Streetscapes should include green, open space for each unit. Policy LU-170. Residential Medium Density development should provide condominium or fee simple homeownership opportunities, as well as rental or lease options. Objective LU-II: Residential Medium Density development should be urban in form and fit into existing residential neighborhoods if developed as infill projects. Policy LU-171. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. Policy LU-172. Non-residential structures, such as community recreation buildings, that are part of the development, may have dimensions larger than residential structures, but should be compatible in design and dimensions with surrounding residential development. Policy LU-173. Non-residential structures should be clustered and connected within the overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, focal points, and amenity features to create a neighborhood. Policy LU-174. Single-family detached building types in the Residential Medium Density designation should have maximum lot coverage by the primary structure of fifty (50) percent. Policy LU-175. In the Residential Medium Density designation common open space equal to 1,200-square feet per unit and maintained by a homeowners' association, should be provided for each semi-attached or attached unit. Policy LU-176. Support site plans that transition to and blend with existing development patterns using techniques such as lot size, depth and width, access points, building location setbacks, and landscaping. Sensitivity to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods should be reflected in site plan design. Interpret development standards to support ground-related orientation, coordinated structural design, and private yards or substantial common space areas. Nod IX-31 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-177. A minimum of fifty(50)percent of a project in the Residential 14 zone should consist of the following primary residential types: traditional detached, zero lot line detached, or townhouses with individual yards that are scaled appropriately for each unit. Policy LU-178. Longer townhouse buildings or other types of multi-family buildings, considered secondary residential types (see RMC 4-9-065), should be limited in size so that the mass and bulk of the building has a small scale multi-family character, rather than that of a large, garden-style apartment development. Policy LU-179. In the Residential 14 zone, multi-unit townhouses that qualify as a primary residential type (see RMC 4-9-065) should be limited in size so that the mass and bulk is at a human scale. Policy LU-180. Projects in a Residential 14 zone should have no more than fifty (50) percent of the units designed as secondary residential types, i.e. longer townhouse building clusters, or longer multi-family buildings of other types. Policy LU-181. Mixed-use development in the form of civic, commercial development, or other non-residential structures, may be allowed in the central places of Residential Medium Density development projects within the Residential 14 zone, subject to compliance with criteria established through development regulations. RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The multi-family residential land use designation is intended to encourage a range of multi-family living environments that provide shelter for a wide variety of people in differing living situations, from all income levels, and in all stages of life. Although some people live in multi-family situations because they do not have an alternative, others prefer living in multi-family environments rather than in single-family, detached houses. Regardless of why they live there, they want and deserve the same high standards for their homes and neighborhoods. Single-family and multi-family residential developments have different impacts on the community. The City must identify a housing mix and implement policies that adequately address and balance the needs of both residents and the community as a whole. The Multi-family Residential designation is implemented by Residential Multi-family (RMF) zoning. Objective LU-JJ: Encourage the development of infill parcels with quality projects in existing multi-family districts. Nay IX-32 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-182. Residential Multi-family designations should be in areas of the City where projects would be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses. Policy LU-183. Land within the Residential Multi-family designation areas should be used to meet multi-family housing needs, without expanding the area boundaries, until land capacity in this designation is used. Residential Multi-family designations have the highest priority for development or redevelopment with multi-family uses. Policy LU-184. Expansion of the Residential Multi-family designation is limited to properties meeting the following criteria: 1) Properties under consideration should take access from a principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector. Direct access should not be through a less intense land use designation area; 2) Properties under consideration must abut an existing Residential Multi-family land use designation on at least two (2) sides and be on the same side of the principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector serving it; and 3) Any such expansion of the Residential Multi-family land use designation should not bisect or truncate another contiguous land use district. Policy LU-185. Development density in the Residential Multi-family designation should be within a range of ten (10) dwelling units per acre as a minimum to twenty(20) dwelling units per acre as a maximum. Objective LU-KK: Due to increased impacts to privacy and personal living space inherent in higher density living environments, new development should be designed to create a high quality living environment. Policy LU-186. New stacked flat and townhouse development in Residential Multi- family designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with existing multi-family developments in the vicinity. Policy LU-187. Detached cottage housing designed to include site amenities with common open space features should be supported in multi-family designations if density goals are met. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-188. Evaluate project proposals in Residential Multi-family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones. Setbacks may be increased, heights reduced, and additional landscape buffering required through site plan review. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. 1) In order to increase the potential compatibility of multi-family projects, with other projects of similar use and density, minimum setbacks for side yards should be proportional to the total lot width, i.e. wider lots should require larger setback dimensions; rrrr� IX-33 ATTACHMENT C 2) Taller buildings (greater than two stories) should have larger side yard setback dimensions; and %Imo 3) Heights of buildings should be limited to three stories and thirty-five (35) feet, unless greater heights can be demonstrated to be compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Objective LU-LL: New Residential Multi-family projects should demonstrate provision of an environment that contributes to a high quality of life for future residents, regardless of income level. Implementing code will be put in place within two years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-189. Support project design that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in architectural design: 1) Variation of facades on all sides of structures visible from the street with vertical and horizontal modulation or articulation; 2) Angular roof lines on multiple planes and with roof edge articulation such as modulated cornices; 3) Private entries from the public sidewalk fronting the building for ground floor units; 4) Ground floor units elevated from sidewalk level; 5) Upper-level access interior to the building; 6) Balconies that serve as functional open space for individual units; and 7) Common entryways with canopy or similar feature. Policy LU-190. Support project site planning that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in order to meet the intent of the objective: I) Buildings oriented toward public streets, 2) Private open space for ground-related units, 3) Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful, 4) Preferably underground parking or structured parking located under the residential building, 5) Surface parking, if necessary, to be located to the side or rear of the residential building(s), 6) Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property, and 7) Landscaping, consisting of groundcover and street trees (at a minimum), of all setbacks and rights-of way abutting the property. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-191. Residential Multi-family projects in the RMF zone should have a maximum site coverage by buildings of thirty-five (35) percent, or forty-five (45) percent if greater coverage can be demonstrated to be both mitigated on site with amenities and compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Policy LU-192. Residential Multi-family projects should have maximum site coverage by impervious materials of seventy-five (75) percent. IX-34 • ATTACHMENT C IX. CENTERS Goal: Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. Discussion: The Centers category of land use includes two areas of the City, the Center Village in the Highlands and the Urban Center located in the historic downtown and the employment area north to Lake Washington. The Urban Center includes two sub-areas: Urban Center- Downtown (220 acres) and the Urban Center-North (310 acres). Together these two areas are envisioned to evolve into a vibrant city core that provides arts, entertainment, regional employment opportunities, recreation, and quality urban residential neighborhoods. The Renton Urban Center is envisioned as the dynamic heart of a growing regional city. Renton's Urban Center will provide significant capacity for new housing in order to absorb the city's share of future regional growth. This residential population will help to balance the City's employment population and thereby meet the policy directive of a 2:1 ratio of jobs to housing. The Center Village designation is envisioned as a revitalized residential and commercial area providing goods and services to the Greater Highlands area. The area could potentially become a focal point for a larger area, the Coal Creek Corridor, connecting Renton to Newcastle and Issaquah. While development is envisioned at a smaller scale than expected in the Urban Center, the Village Center will still focus on urban mixed-use projects with a pedestrian-oriented development pattern. Objective LU-M1\1: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a viable district. Policy LU-193. Promote the innovative site planning and clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-194. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives. Policy LU-195. Designate Center boundaries according to the following criteria: 1) The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity; 2) Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills, and significant stands of trees; 3) Boundaries should occur along public rights-of-way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern. Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels; and 4) As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within a walkable distance from one or two focal points, which may be defined by intersections, transit stops, or shopping centers. IX-35 ATTACHMENT C *low Policy LU-196. Designate Centers in locations with the following characteristics: 1) A nucleus of existing multi-use development; 2) Potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development; 3) Center locations should be located on major transit and transportation routes; 4) Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. Policy LU-197. Change adopted boundaries only in the following circumstances: 1) The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use that would make implementation of the boundary illogical, or 2) The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center. Policy LU-198. Support new office and commercial development that is more intensive than the older office and commercial development in existing Centers in order to create more compact and efficient Centers over time. Policy LU-199. Allow stand-alone residential development of various types and urban densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial development, or in the Urban Center in districts designated for residential use. Policy LU-200. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed-use developments. Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial uses or lower density residential that is adjacent to Centers. '04110` Policy LU-201. Include uses that are compatible with each other within mixed-use developments; for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and retail. Policy LU-202. Locate and design commercial uses within a residential mixed-use development in a manner that preserves privacy and quiet for residents. Policy LU-203. Modify existing commercial and residential uses that are adjacent to or within new proposed development to implement the new Center land use vision as much as possible through alterations in parking lot design, landscape, signage, and site plan as redevelopment opportunities occur. Policy LU-204. Consolidate signage for mixed-use development. Policy LU-205. Identify major natural features and support development of new focal points that define the Center and are visually distinctive. Policy LU-206. Design focal points to include a combination of public areas such as parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops, or outdoor eating areas. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways if possible. Policy LU-207. Evaluate existing intersections of arterial roadways for opportunities to create focal points. Nov IX-36 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-208. Consolidate access to existing streets and provide internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access. Policy LU-209. Locate parking for residential uses in the mixed-use developments to minimize disruption of pedestrian or auto access to the retail component of the project. Policy LU-210. Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design features such as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces. Objective NN: Implement Renton's Urban Center consistent with the "Urban Centers criteria" of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to create an area of concentrated employment and housing with direct service by high capacity transit and a wide range of land uses such as commercial/office/retail, recreation, public facilities, parks and open space. Policy LU-211. Renton's Urban Center should be maintained and redeveloped with supporting land use decisions and projects that accomplish the following objectives: 1) Enhance existing neighborhoods by creating investment opportunities in quality urban scale development; 2) Promote housing opportunities close to employment and commercial areas; 3) Support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles; 4) Strive for urban densities that use land more efficiently; 5) Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services; 6) Reduce costs of and time required for permitting; and -4000 7) Evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. Policy LU-212. Establish two sub-areas within Renton's Urban Center. 1) Urban Center-Downtown (UC-D) is Renton's historic commercial district, surrounded by established residential neighborhoods. The UC-D is located from the Cedar River south to South 7th Street and between 1-405 on the east and Shattuck Avenue South on the west. 2) Urban Center—North (UC-N) is the area that includes Southport, the Puget Sound Energy sub-station, and the South Lake Washington redevelopment area. The UC-N is located generally from Lake Washington on the north, the Cedar River and Renton Municipal Airport to the west, Sixth Street and Renton Stadium to the south, and Houser Way to the east. Policy LU-213. Maintain zoning that creates capacity for employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the Urban Center. Policy LU-214: Support developments that utilize Urban Center levels of capacity. Where market conditions do not support Urban Center employment and residential levels, support site planning and/or phasing alternatives that demonstrate how, over time, infill or redevelopment can meet Urban Center objectives. Policy LU-215. Site and building design should be pedestrian/people oriented with provisions for transit and automobiles where appropriate. IX-37 ATTACHMENT C URBAN CENTER DOWNTOWN LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The Urban Center- Downtown (UC-D) is expected to redevelop as Now a destination shopping area providing neighborhood, citywide, and sub-regional services and mixed-use residential development. UC-D residential development is expected to support urban scale multi-family projects at high densities, consistent with Urban Center policies. Projects in the UC-D are expected to incorporate mixed-uses including retail, office, residential, and service uses that support transit and further the synergism of public and private sector activities. In the surrounding neighborhoods, infill urban scale townhouse and multi-family residential developments are anticipated. Site planning and infrastructure will promote a pedestrian scale environment and amenities. Objective LU-00: Create a balance of land uses that contribute to the revitalization of downtown Renton and, with the designated Urban Center - North, fulfill the requirements of an Urban Center as defined by Countywide Planning Policies. Policy LU-216. Uses in the Urban Center - Downtown should include a dynamic mix of uses, including retail, entertainment, restaurant, office, and residential, that contribute to a vibrant city core. Policy LU-217. Development and redevelopment of Urban Center - Downtown should strive for urban density and intensity of uses. Policy LU-218. Ground floor uses with street frontage along Wells Avenue South between Houser Way and South 2nd Street and along South 3rd Street between Main Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South should be limited to businesses which primarily cater to walk-in customer traffic (i.e. retail goods and services) in order to generate and maintain continuous pedestrian activity in these areas. Walk-in customer oriented businesses should also be encouraged to locate along street frontages in the remainder of the downtown core. Policy LU-219. Projects in the Urban Center -Downtown should achieve an urban density and intensity of development that is greater than typical suburban neighborhoods. Characteristics of urban intensity include no or little setbacks, taller structures, mixed- uses, structured parking, urban plazas and amenities within buildings. Policy LU-220. Non-conforming uses should transition to conforming uses. Non- conforming structures should be re-used to house conforming uses unless the size and scale of the structure significantly limits the intensity and quality of development that can be achieved. Policy LU-221. Development should not exceed mid-rise heights (maximuml0 stories) within the Urban Center - Downtown. Objective LU-PP: Encourage the evolution of downtown Renton as a regional commercial district that complements the redevelopment expected to occur in the Urban Center -North. 4410.0, IX-38 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-222. Automobile-related sales and service uses that require large amounts of land and currently exist within the Urban Center—Downtown should be encouraged to locate in the City's "Auto Mall" located outside of the Urban Center- Downtown or to '"'is00 consolidate their sites and provide multi-storied facilities. New automobile-related sales and service uses should be discouraged from locating in the Urban Center - Downtown. Policy LU-223. Discourage uses including expansion of existing uses in the Urban Center- Downtown that require large areas of surface parking and/or drive-through service queuing space. Objective LU-QQ: Encourage additional residential development in the Urban Center - Downtown supporting the Countywide Planning Policies definition of Urban Center. Policy LU-224. Maximize the use of existing urban services and civic amenities and revitalize the City's downtown by promoting medium to high-density residential development in the downtown area. Allowed densities should conform to the criteria for Urban Centers in the countywide policies. Policy LU-225. Mixed-use development where residential and commercial uses are allowed in the same building or on the same site should be encouraged in the urban Center- Downtown. Incentives should be developed to encourage future development or redevelopment projects that incorporate residential uses. Policy LU-226. Net residential development densities in the Urban Center - Downtown designation should achieve a range of 14-100 dwelling units per acre and vary by zoning district. Policy LU-227. Density bonuses up to 150 du/ac may be granted within designated areas for provision of, or contribution to, a public amenity (e.g. passive recreation, public art) or provision of additional structured public parking. Policy LU-228. Condominium development and high-density owner-occupied townhouse development is encouraged in the Urban Center - Downtown. Objective LU-RR: Recognize the following Downtown Districts reflecting varying development standards and uses that distinguish these areas. 1) Downtown Pedestrian District; 2) Downtown Core; 3) South Renton's Williams-Wells Subarea (see South Renton Neighborhood Plan); 4) South Renton's Burnett Park Subarea (see South Renton Neighborhood Plan); and 5) Cedar River Subarea north of the Downtown Core. Policy LU-229. Encourage the most intensive development in the Downtown Pedestrian District and Downtown Core with a transition to lower-scale commercial and residential projects in areas surrounding the Downtown Core. Policy LU-230. Ground-floor uses with street frontage in the Downtown Pedestrian District should be limited to businesses that primarily cater to walk-in customer traffic IX-39 ATTACHMENT C (i.e. retail goods and services) in order to generate and maintain continuous pedestrian activity in these areas. Policy LU-231. Walk-in customer-oriented businesses should be encouraged to locate along street frontages in the Downtown Core Area and the portion of the Urban Center- Downtown located west of it. Policy LU-232. Medium-rise residential (6-10 stories) should be located within the Cedar River Subarea, primarily between the Cedar River and South 2nd, and between South 7th and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. Policy LU-233. The area between South 7th and the Burlington Northern Railroad right- of-way should include a combination of low- (1-5 stories) and medium-rise residential to provide a transition between the employment area and the mixed-use core. Policy LU-234. Specific streetscapes, development standards, and design guidelines for the South Renton Neighborhood are outlined in the South Renton Neighborhood Plan within the Subarea Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective LU-SS: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand within the downtown. Policy LU-235. Parking should be structured whenever feasible. Accessory surface parking is discouraged. Policy LU-236. The existing supply of parking should be managed to encourage joint use rather than parking for each individual business. Now Policy LU-237. Downtown parking standards should recognize the different demands and requirements of both local and regional commercial parking versus those of office and residential uses. Policy LU-238. Alternatives to individual on-site parking that encourage efficient use of urban land (e.g. fees in lieu of parking, multiple-use or shared parking leased off-site parking, car-sharing) should be encouraged. Policy LU-239. Parking standards and requests for parking modifications for downtown residents should reflect the market demand of urban residential uses, taking into account transit service availability, car-sharing availability, and other transportation demand management tools available. Policy LU-240. In order to maximize on street parking availability in the downtown, loading and delivery areas for downtown uses should be consolidated and limited to alleys, other off-street areas, or city-designated on-street loading zones. Alley and off- street loading and delivery areas should be screened from view of the street. Policy LU-241. Alleys should be maintained in the Urban Center - Downtown in order to facilitate use of alley-accessed parking areas, freight delivery, and removal of refuse and recyclables. Objective LU-TT: Develop a transit circulation/distribution system that provides convenient connections between downtown and residential, employment, and other commercial areas within the Renton planning area. ,torr 1X-40 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-242. Transit should link the downtown with other parts of the Urban Center, other commercial activity areas, and the City's major employment areas to encourage use of the downtown by those employees both during and after work hours. Policy LU-243. Future development and improvements in the Urban Center— Downtown should emphasize non-automobile oriented travel both to and within the downtown, while maintaining an adequate amount of parking for regional retail customers. Transit and parking programs should be integrated, balanced, and implemented concurrently. Policy LU-244. Both intercity and intra-city transit should be focused at the Renton Transit Center, the multi-modal transit facility located in the Downtown Core Area. Policy LU-245. Peinianent park and ride facilities in the Urban Center - Downtown should use structured parking garages and support the Transit Center. Policy LU-246. Continue development of transit-oriented development in the activity node established by the downtown transit facility. Policy LU-247. Seek ways of improving speed and reliability of transit serving Renton's Downtown. Policy LU-248. Transit span of service should increase as Downtown Renton adds evening entertainment, dining, and recreation opportunities. Objective LU-UU: Improve the City's pedestrian and bicycle network to increase access to and circulation within the Urban Center- Downtown. Policy LU-249. Pedestrian spaces should be emphasized and connected throughout the downtown. Policy LU-250. Pedestrians should be given priority use of sidewalks within the Urban Center—Downtown designated pedestrian areas. Policy LU-251. Block lengths and widths should be maintained at the pedestrian- friendly standards that predominate within the downtown. Policy LU-252. Where right-of-way is available and bicycle demand justifies them, bicycle lanes should be marked and signed to accommodate larger volumes of bicycle traffic on select streets designated by the City. Policy LU-253. Secure bicycle parking facilities, such as bike lockers and bike racks should be provided at residential, commercial, and public establishments to encourage bicycle use. Objective LU-VV: Improve the visual, physical and experiential quality, lighting and safety, especially for pedestrians, along downtown streets. Policy LU-254. Strong visual linkages should be created between downtown Renton and neighborhoods using landscaped arterial streets and connectors. IX-41 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-255. Buildings along South 3rd Street between Main and Burnett Avenues should retain a pedestrian scale by employing design techniques that maintain the appearance and feel of low-rise structures to avoid creation of the "canyon effect" (e.g. preserving historic facades, stepping facades back above the second or third floor). Policy LU-256. Downtown gateways should employ distinctive landscaping, signage, art, architectural style, and similar techniques to better delineate the downtown and enhance its unique character. Policy LU-257. Parking lots and structures should employ and maintain landscaping and other design techniques to minimize the visual impacts of these uses. Objective LU-WW: Improve the visual and physical appearance of buildings to create a more positive image for downtown. Policy LU-258. Site and building designs, (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; and parking, should reflect unity of design to create a distinct sense of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Policy LU-259. Incentives should be developed to encourage rehabilitation (e.g. facade restoration) of older downtown buildings. Objective LU-XX: Maintain and expand the available amenities to make the Urban Center- Downtown more appealing to existing and potential customers, residents, and employees. Policy LU-260. Design guidelines should assist developers in creating attractive projects that add value to the downtown community, attract new residents, employees, and visitors, and foster a unique downtown identity. Policy LU-261. Design guidelines may vary by zone within the downtown area to recognize and foster unique identities for the different land use areas (i.e. South Renton's Burnett Park Subarea). Policy LU-262. New downtown parks should complement existing park facilities and be compatible with planned trails. Trails should be integrated with the existing trail system. Policy LU-263. Urban Center- Downtown development should be designed to take advantage of existing unique downtown amenities such as the Cedar River, City parks and trails, the downtown Transit Center, IKEA Performing Arts Center, and Renton High School. Policy LU-264. Public amenities such as art, fountains, or similar features should be incorporated into the design of public areas, major streets and gateways of the Urban Center - Downtown. URBAN CENTER NORTH LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban IX-42 low ATTACHMENT C Center is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center-Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. In addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban-scale, mixed- use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will generate significant tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district. Policy LU-265. Support more urban intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking standards) than with land uses in the suburban areas of the City outside the Urban Center. Policy LU-266. Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City's tax and employment base. Policy LU-267. Support a range and variety of commercial and office uses. Policy LU-268. Allow hospitality uses such as hotels, convention and conference centers. Policy LU-269. Co-locate uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban style, mixed-use development. Policy LU-270. Support incorporation of public facilities such as schools, museums, medical offices, and government offices into redevelopment efforts by developing a public/private partnership with developers and other Renton stakeholders such as the school district, technical college, and hospital district. Policy LU-271. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the entire Urban Center. Policy LU-272. Support uses that serve the region, a sub-regional, or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-273. Support integration of community-scale office and service uses including restaurants, theaters, day care, art museums and studios. Policy LU-274. Support transit stations and transit usage connecting to a system of park and ride lots outside the Urban Center-North. Support park and ride facilities within the Urban Center only when they are included in structured parking as a stand-alone use or are developed as part of a mixed-use project. Policy LU-275. Support an expanded and extended public right-of-way in the vicinity of the present Logan Avenue to provide new arterial access within the Urban Center. Additionally, this will provide a physical buffer between redevelopment and continuing airplane manufacturing operations. Policy LU-276. Support extension of Park Ave. to Lake Washington. IX-43 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-277. Recognize the need for secure limited access within large manufacturing facilities by retaining private drives and roads in areas where airplane manufacturing *ow operations continue. Policy LU-278. Support creation of a significant gateway feature within gateway nodes in the Urban Center-North. Policy LU-279. Support private/public partnerships to plan and finance infrastructure development, public uses and amenities. Policy LU-280. Use a hierarchy of conceptual plan, master plan and site plan review and approval to encourage the cohesive development of large land areas within the Urban Center-North. Incorporate integrated design regulations into this review process. Policy LU-281. Address the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of gateway features, signs, circulation, transit opportunities, and phasing through master plan and site plan review process. Policy LU-282. Fully integrate signage, building height, bulk, setbacks, landscaping, and parking considerations in structures and site plans across the various components of each proposed development. Policy LU-283. Require significant pedestrian element in internal site circulation plans. Policy LU-284. Allow phasing plans for mixed-use projects. Policy LU-285. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and Noe intensities over time. Policy LU-286. Support structured parking to facilitate full redevelopment of the Urban Center over the 30-year planning horizon. Where structured parking is infeasible for early phases of development, parking should be located in the rear or the side of the primary structure. Policy LU-287. Discourage parking lots between structures and street right-of-way. Policy LU-288. Orient buildings to streets to emphasize urban character, maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the District. Policy LU-289. Use design regulations to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation. Policy LU-290. Support a combination of internal and external site design features such as: 1) Plazas; 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Significant natural features; 4) Distinctive focal features; and 5) Gateways. Now IX-44 7 I ATTACHMENT C / • \_- . - --:, 117:,,I±L__ :::- j'r-Y,- '1::-J'E-- ‘Niusto _ : P 'fr\\ /`- I;,0 f CIE rip 1 -; \ ,- -, -- -, . .. - ::_-_LI EF.TM Iii`-' \ \ 7'7'-- &!R-=I L77- 1 �,, (\ . \ k .,:r.. ti_-- \ --:_ ________ H-c).,%. r_I : 1 . .• \r, _ _____ _ .r . . �� � , \\ 7-_,,Ti . , .: 1 _:-,-. 71, _L_L..:_,,i .: , , . \ r—\'. ,,.,„ ,),.--::: ,____\ \, , . ,i J r 1 II � »_' , ) __, Y [ -.''''1'- '' ' 7 _ ._.J Li \ ''s / :,,_4[1] ' -HT,'.A..'‘7'7/./// / II /,// . 7---'-:-=--1-----L—______ 7.3) H..k Wi- ' - T j_„,,c--_-. ,. ,_ _ \\,, . :\c---7,1-I-1 \\. Li/T.-- i - _ .:„. LL,/irTr*,,-_-_-,/.„.:,,,. ,IA__7/-_•,(, 'r ,:,,,:r-,—____! y-r_i-.-I iutriji /± r , . s,,, ,,,,\„r, \.) r ---- -- -_-_--.,•7; '.. • \ 1-- -_,=1. ., 1 VI,-;:-.. ic., ,,_. . , .,, ,, ___fi, =(,, \, . .. ,___p_.„.-,:iJi__11-,z,..T.-LH L.. - . >'<--_____ _____ _ . ) - \ IIi / , '' - ' -\'' - [ ' ) ir-f--N, Urban Center Map —— City Limits Urban Center Boundary -."0:-.,, Eamomic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Ak PINuh,Administrator '.V.T0 17 July 2007 IX-45 ATTACHMENT C Policies for Surrounding Residential Area (North Renton Neighborhood, south of N 6th St) Ak.r Policy LU-291. Provide a transition in land use with respect to intensity of development where areas mapped Residential Single Family and Residential Options border Urban Center - North designations. Policy LU-292. Create boulevard standards for arterial streets connecting or running through adjacent residential neighborhoods that address noise, pedestrian sidewalks, planting areas between vehicular lanes and pedestrian areas, traffic calming techniques, lighting standards, a landscape planting plan for street trees and other vegetation, and street furniture. Policy LU-293. Support a mix of activities within the Urban Center - North designation that supports populations in adjacent residential areas as well as new development within the re-development area. Examples of uses that serve the needs of existing populations include neighborhood-scale retail that addresses the day-to-day needs of residents, restaurants and coffee houses, public facilities, and places of assembly such as parks and plazas. Policies for Public Facilities Policy LU-294. Evaluate public facility needs for projected new populations within the Urban Center—North to accommodate a wide range of future users. Policy LU-295. Support a partnership with community stakeholders such as the Renton School District to provide a transition for public properties adjacent to the Urban Center "' ' North such as the Sartori School and Renton Stadium facilities. Transition of these facilities could range from accommodating a new clientele as the area transitions to mixed-use activities, or physical redevelopment of properties addressing the needs of employees or residents of the Urban Center. Policy LU-296. Recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as an Essential Public Facility. (See section on Airport Compatible Land Use policies). Urban Center North Districts The proposed Urban Center-North is divided into two districts for planning purposes. Each district has a different emphasis in terms of range, intensity, and mix of uses. These are District One, east of Logan Avenue, and District Two, west of Logan Avenue. The implementation of planning concepts for District Two will be dependent on decisions by The Boeing Company regarding continued airplane assembly operations at the Renton Plant. For this reason, initiation of redevelopment in District Two will likely occur after transition of the area east of Logan Avenue, District One, has begun. Consolidation of Boeing operations may cause certain property located within District One to be deemed surplus, making it available for redevelopment within the near future. District One is envisioned to include a variety of uses. The intensity of these uses would require substantial infrastructure improvements. More extensive development, ultimately anticipated with the future development of District Two, will likely require even more -.44460, significant infrastructure upgrades. IX-46 ,amior • ATTACHMENT C Redevelopment in both districts of the Urban Center -North will be responsive and protective of the North Renton residential neighborhood to the south. While the North Renton neighborhood is not a part of the Urban Center, its residents will benefit from the significant amenities provided by development of a new urban community. Redevelopment within both districts will occur in a manner that is not incompatible with the operations at the Renton Municipal Airport, recognizing that the airport is an Essential Public Facility located within an urban area. Redevelopment within both districts will be consistent with the City's Airport Compatible Land Use Program. The program responds to State requirements to consider how land use in the surrounding areas affects the Renton airport. The current supply of underutilized land north of N. 8th Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties, both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area-Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two. The following"visions" have been developed for each District. Vision - District One The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large- Ned scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings surrounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian-oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District. Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially may be handled in surface lots, their configuration,juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-foimat ("big- box") retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated IX-47 ATTACHMENT C shopping centers. Cafes with outdoor seating, tree-lined boulevards and small gathering places invite shoppers to linger after making their initial purchases. Retail development Now takes an urban form with high-quality design considering a human scale and pedestrian orientation. While retail development will add to the City's tax base and create a modest increase in employment, the vision for the Urban Center-North is that of a dense employment center. Within the initial phases of redevelopment,job growth will also occur in high-quality, well-designed flex/tech development and low- to mid-rise office, lab and research and development buildings that provide attractive environments for companies offering high- wage careers in information technology, life sciences and light ("clean") manufacturing and assembly industries. Redevelopment in this area will also include residential opportunities in low- to mid-rise buildings with upper-story office and/or ground-related retail. Additional supporting retail will also be constructed. Logan Avenue is extended and redeveloped for public use as a major, tree-lined parkway. During the second generation of redevelopment in District One, changing property values and further investment will allow for higher density development in the form of offices and residences mixed with other uses. As this area is transformed into a mature mixed- use district, community gathering spaces and recreation facilities to support the City's neighborhoods and business districts become viable. Cultural facilities, as well as convention and conference centers may be located within the District and could be incorporated into mixed-use development with retail, office and hotels. Small parks, open space, and community gathering places will be incorporated into site design. Facilities such as multiple-screen theaters and other cultural facilities may add to the amenity value of the District. District One Policies Objective LU-YY: Create a major commercial/retail district developed with uses that add significantly to Renton's retail tax base, provide additional employment opportunities within the City, attract businesses that serve a broad market area and act as a gathering place within the community. Policy LU-297. Support office and technology-based uses with retail uses and services along portions of the ground floors to facilitate the creation of an urban and pedestrian environment. Policy LU-298. Support uses supporting high-technology industries such as biotechnology, life sciences, and information technology by providing retail amenities and services in the area. Policy LU-299. Allow for the development of destination retail centers that are consistent with a district-wide conceptual plan. Policy LU-300. Encourage the placement of buildings for retail tenants along pedestrian- oriented streets to create urban configurations. IX-48 . 1 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments. Policy LU-302. Encourage a variety of architectural treatments and styles to create an urban environment. Objective LU-ZZ: Create an urban district initially characterized by high-quality, compact, low-rise development that can accommodate a range of independent retail, office, research, or professional companies. Support the continuing investment in and transition of low-rise development into more intensive, urban forms of development to support a vital mixed-use district over time. Policy LU-303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development through master planning, building location, and design guidelines. Policy LU-304. Support urban forms of setback and buffering treatment such as: a) Street trees with sidewalk grates, b) Paving and sidewalk extensions or plazas, and c) Planters and street furniture. Policy LU-305. Allow phasing plans for developments as part of the master plan and site plan review that: a) Provide a strategy for future infill or redevelopment with mixed-use buildings. b) Preserve opportunities for future structured parking and more intense employment-generating development. `"' Policy LU-306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or under-building parking is not viable. Policy LU-307. Support development of parking structures using private/public partnerships when the market will not support structural parking without subsidy. Policy LU-308. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of blocks, screened from the street by structures with landscape buffers. Policy LU-309. Consider public/private participation in provision of structured parking, to stimulate additional private investment and produce a more urban environment. Policy LU-310. Support shared parking by averaging parking ratios for co-located and mixed-uses. Policy LU-311. Reduce the suburban character of development, preserve opportunities for infill development, and provide for efficient use of land by setting maximum parking standards. Policy LU-312. Support the co-location of uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban style mixed-use (commercial/retail/office/residential) development. Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads. IX-49 ATTACHMENT C Vision - District Two Ongoing Boeing airplane manufacturing is supported by the City and expected to continue across District Two for the foreseeable future. This important industrial base will continue to provide high-wage jobs within the Urban Center—North as redevelopment occurs in District One. Should Boeing surplus property west of Logan Avenue, redevelopment that follows will take on more urban characteristics, incorporating mixed-use (residential, office, and retail) development types. Planning for the redevelopment of District Two will take into consideration the unique issues involved in the transition of a site historically used for heavy industry adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport. Redevelopment will be consistent with the Renton Municipal Airport Compatible Land Use Program. Eventually, redevelopment will lead to the creation of a vibrant new lakefront community providing additional housing, shopping, and employment opportunities to the region. The South Lake Washington neighborhood will be a center of activity in the Puget Sound region a premiere address for residents, a hub of economic activity providing capacity for high-wage jobs, and a world-class destination for shopping, dining, recreation, and entertainment Mixed-use projects will be high in design and construction quality, and offer landmark living, shopping, and working environments planned to take advantage of a regionally centralized location, efficient access, mass transit, potential passenger ferry connections, stellar views of lake and mountains, and restored natural environments along the Cedar ire` River and Lake Washington shorelines. Development within District Two will be organized into neighborhoods with housing, shopping, employment, and recreation opportunities located within walking distance. Low- to mid-rise buildings will be located to the south while development to the north will be primarily mid-to- high-rise in order to maximize views. While some on-street or surface parking may occur, the majority of parking will be provided in the lower levels of mixed-use buildings or in stand-alone structures designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. This environment attracts a residential population living in up-scale neighborhoods featuring higher-density condominium and apartment forms of housing north of N. 8th St. Townhouse developments south of N. 8th St. provide a transition to the adjacent North Renton neighborhood in terms of scale and use of buildings. Residents of both neighborhoods will find ample shopping and employment opportunities in the immediate vicinity. Residents, employees and visitors will enjoy new public open space. These range from public access to the lakefront through small parks, overviews, and trails, to large public plazas and central greens that provide gathering places, recreational opportunities, and a celebration of views of the Seattle skyline, the Olympic Mountains, and Mount Rainier. IX-50 ATTACHMENT C District Two Policies Objective LU-AAA: Support ongoing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses. Policy LU-314. Support existing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses while allowing for the gradual transition to other uses should The Boeing Company surplus property within District Two. Policy LU-315. Allow airplane manufacturing and related accessory uses such as airplane sales and repair, laboratories for research, development and testing, medical institutions, and light industrial uses including small scale or less intensive production and manufacturing, and fabricating with accessory office and support services. Objective LU-BBB: If Boeing elects to surplus property in District Two, land uses should transition into an urban area characterized by high-quality development offering landmark living, shopping and work environments planned to take advantage of access and views to the adjacent river and lake shorelines. Policy LU-316. Should The Boeing Company elect to surplus properties in District Two support the redevelopment with a range and variety of commercial, office, research, and residential uses. 1) Support a mid- to high-rise scale and intensity of development. 2) Support retail and service activities as ancillary uses that are synergistic with commercial, office, biotech, research, technology, and residential activities. Traditional retail (Main Street), general business and professional services, and ,,, ' general offices are examples of the types of uses that are supported in combination with other activities. 3) Support urban scale residential development in District Two. North of N. 8th Street structured parking should be required. 4) Allow a limited range of service uses, such as churches, government offices and facilities, commercial parking garages, and day care centers through the conditional use process. 5) Allow eating and drinking establishments and cultural facilities as part of office or mixed-use development. 6) Prohibit new warehousing, storage including self-storage, vehicle sales, repair and display(including boats, cars, trucks and motorcycles), assembly and packaging operations, heavy and medium manufacturing and fabrication unrelated to production of new commercial airplanes. 7) Support development of public amenities such as public open space, schools, recreational and cultural facilities, and museums. 8) Allow commercial uses such as retail and services provided that they support the primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. IX-51 ATTACHMENT C CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close-in urban mixed-use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian-oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub-regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LU-CCC: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provide a pedestrian scale environment. Policy LU-317. Apply the Center Village designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto-oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed-use type of development. Policy LU-318. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including Residential 14 (R-14), Center Village (CV), and the Residential Multi-family zones (RMF, RM-U, RM-T). Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designations or re-zone with the vision for a Center Nr++` Village designation Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub-area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the Highlands Subarea Plan is expected to occur within a 2 5- year period from the 2004 GMA update. Policy LU-320. Allow residential density ranging from a minimum of I 0 to a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village designation. Policy LU-321. Encourage mixed-use structures and projects. Policy LU-322. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the Center Village. Policy LU-323. Accommodate parking within a parking structure. Where structured parking is infeasible due to site configuration, parking should be located in the back or the side of the primary structure. Parking lots between structures and street rights-of- way shall not be permitted. Policy LU-324. Use alley access where alleys currently exist. Encourage designation of new alleys in redevelopment projects. Policy LU-325. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency. fine IX-52 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-326. Develop design guidelines to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, parking, and circulation components of new development projects. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-327. Encourage uses in Center Villages that serve a sub-regional or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-328. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within Center Villages than with land uses outside the Centers. Policy LU-329. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-330. Residential development within Center Villages is intended to be urban scale, stacked, flat and/or townhouse development with structured parking. Policy LU-331. Prohibit new garden style multi-family development. Policy LU-332. Provide community scale office and service uses. IX-53 ATTACHMENT C X. COMMERCIAL Goal: Support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for new commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use residential uses that enhance the City's employment and tax base along arterial boulevards and in designated development areas. Discussion: There are three commercial designations: 1) Commercial Corridor; 2) Commercial/Office/Residential; and 3) Commercial Neighborhood. These commercial areas range from intense retail corridors to major office parks to neighborhood scale business districts. Many commercial areas are located along arterials where the high volumes of daily traffic provide a substantial customer base. COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The Commercial Corridor district is characterized by concentrated, pre-existing commercial activity, primarily in a linear urban form, that provides necessary goods and services for daily living, accessible to near-by neighborhoods, serving a sub-regional market and accommodating large volumes of traffic. It is the intention of City objectives and policies that Commercial Corridor areas evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities, and boulevard treatment. Commercial Corridor areas may include designated districts including concentrations of specialized uses such as the Auto Mall, or features such as transit stops and a combination of businesses creating a focal point of pedestrian activity and visual interest. Commercial Corridor areas are characterized by medium intensity levels of activity. It is anticipated, however, that intensity levels in these areas will increase over time as development of vacant space occurs, increased land value makes redevelopment feasible, and land is used more efficiently. In these districts, provision of pedestrian amenities is encouraged, as are opportunities to link adjacent uses and neighborhoods. Objective LU-DDD: The Commercial Corridor land use designation should include: 1) Established commercial and office areas; 2) Developments located on large parcels of land; 3) Projects that may be highly visible from principal arterials; 4) Uses dependent upon or benefiting from high-volume traffic; IX-54 ATTACHMENT C 5) Uses that provide significant employment; and 6) Businesses that provide necessary or desirable goods and services to the larger community. Policy LU-333. The Commercial Corridor Land Use designation should be mapped in areas with the following characteristics: 1) Located on, and having access to, streets classified as principal arterials; 2) High traffic volumes; or 3) Land use pattern characterized by strip commercial development, shopping centers, or office parks. Policy LU-334. The Commercial Corridor designation should be implemented through Commercial Arterial, Commercial Office, or Light Industrial zoning. Policy LU-335. Increased demand for commercial uses should be accommodated primarily through redevelopment and intensification of existing business area designations rather than expansion of those areas. Objective LU-EEE: Create opportunities for development and re-development of land in portions of the Commercial Corridor designation for general business and service uses. These include a wide range of restaurant, small-scale to big-box retail, offices, auto dealers, light industrial, and residential uses. Policy LU-336. Portions of the Commercial Corridor designation appropriate for a wide range of uses catering to low and medium intensity office, service, and retail uses should be mapped with Commercial Arterial zoning. Policy LU-337. Areas that should be considered for Commercial Arterial zoning should meet the following criteria: 1) The corridor is served by transit or has transit within one-quarter mile; 2) A historical strip commercial urban development pattern predominates; 3) Large, surface parking lots exist; 4) Primary development on the site is located at rear portions of the property with parking in front of the buildings; 5) Parcel size and configuration typically is defined by a larger parcel fronting the arterial street with multiple buildings and businesses; and 6) The corridor exhibits long block lengths and/or an incomplete grid street network. Policy LU-338. Commercial Arterial zoned areas should include an opportunity for residential uses and office as part of mixed-use development. Objective LU-FFF: Create opportunities for intensive office uses in portions of Commercial Corridor designations including a wide range of business, financial, and professional services supported by service and commercial/retail activities. ]x-55 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-339. Areas of the City identified for intensive office use may be mapped with Commercial Office implementing zoning when site is developed, historically used for **w' office, or the site meets the following criteria: 1) Site is located contiguous to an existing or planned transit route; 2) Large parcel size; 3) High visibility; and 4) Opportunities for views. Policy LU-340. Small-scale medical uses associated with major institutions should be located in the portions of Commercial Corridor designated areas with Commercial Office zoning, in the Urban Center, or in the Employment Area—Valley. Policy LU-341. Retirement centers that have a medical facility as a component of the services offered should be located in areas of the Commercial Corridor that have Commercial Office zoning. Policy LU-342. Medium and high intensity office should be encouraged as the primary use in Commercial Office zoned areas. Policy LU-343. Retail and services should support the primary office use in areas identified for Commercial Office zoning, and should be located on the ground floor of office and parking structures. Policy LU-344. In the Commercial Office zone, high-rise office development should be limited to ten (10) stories. Fifteen (15) stories may be obtained through a height bonus system. Policy LU-345. Height bonuses of five (5) stories may be allowed for office buildings in designated areas of the Commercial Office zone, under appropriate conditions, where sites provide additional public benefits such as plazas, parks, exceptional landscaping, and/or public art. Objective LU-GGG: Guide redevelopment of land in the Commercial Corridor designation with Commercial Arterial zoning, from the existing strip commercial forms into more concentrated forms, in which structures and parking evolve from the existing suburban form, to more efficient urban configurations with cohesive site planning. Policy LU-346. Support the redevelopment of commercial business districts located along principal arterials in the City. Policy LU-347. Implement development standards that encourage lively, attractive, medium to high-density commercial areas. Policy LU-348. Encourage consolidation of individual parcels to maximize flexibility of site design and reduce access points. IX-56 41rrr w ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-349. Support development plans incorporating the following features: 1) Shared access points and fewer curb cuts; r.r 2) Internal circulation among adjacent parcels; 3) Shared parking facilities; 4) Allowance for future transition to structured parking facilities; 5) Centralized signage; 6) Unified development concepts; and 7) Landscaping and streetscape that softens visual impacts. Policy LU-350. New development in Commercial Corridor designated areas should be encouraged to implement uniform site standards, including: 1) Minimum lot depth of 200 feet; 2) Maximum height of ten (10) stories within office zoned designations; 3) Parking preferably at the rear of the building, or on the side as a second choice; 4) Setbacks that would allow incorporating a landscape buffer; 5) Front setback without frontage street or driveway between building and sidewalk; and 6) Common signage and lighting system. Policy LU-351. Identify and map activity nodes located along principal arterials that are the foundation of the Corridors, and guide the development or redevelopment of these nodes as activity areas for the larger corridors so that they enhance their function. Policy LU-352. Development within defined activity nodes should be subject to additional design guidelines as delineated in the development standards. Policy LU-353. Structures at Commercial Corridor intersections should not be set back from the street and sidewalk so as to allow vehicular circulation or parking to be located between the sidewalk and the building. Policy LU-354. Commercial Corridor intersections frequented by pedestrians, due to the nature of nearby uses or transit stops, should feature sidewalk pavement increased to foini pedestrian corners and include pedestrian amenities, signage, and special design treatment that would make them identifiable as activity areas for the larger corridor. Policy LU-355. Parking at designated intersections should be in back of structures and not located between structures and the sidewalk or street. Policy LU-356. Structures in Commercial Corridor areas that front sidewalks abutting the principal arterial or are located at activity nodes should be eligible for a height bonus and therefore may exceed the maximum allowable height in the district. Policy LU-357. Public amenity features (e.g. plazas, recreation areas) should be encouraged as part of new development or redevelopment. Policy LU-358. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along roadways, to reduce visual impacts. Objective LU-HHH: Support methods of increasing accessibility to Commercial Corridor areas for both automobile and transit to support the land use objectives of the district. 100 IX-57 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-359. Support routing of the citywide transit system to Commercial Corridor areas to provide greater access. fir., Policy LU-360. Encourage development proponents to work with the City Transportation Division, King County METRO, and Sound Transit in order to site transit stops within the Commercial Corridor areas. Policy LU-361. Public transportation transit stops located in Commercial Corridor areas should be safe, clean, comfortable, and attractive. Objective LU-III: Ensure quality development in Commercial Office zones. Policy LU-362. Office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy LU-363. Parking provided on-site, in parking structures, and either buffered from adjacent uses or incorporated into pedestrian-oriented street design, is preferred. Policy LU-364. In areas developed with high intensity office uses, circulation within the site should be primarily pedestrian-oriented. Policy LU-365. In areas developed with high intensity office uses, vehicular access to the site should be from the primary street with the access points minimized and designed to ease entrance and exit. Policy LU-366. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas) should be encouraged (i.e. through incentives or similar means) as part of every high-intensity �Mr office development. Policy LU-367. In areas developed with high intensity office uses, site and building design should be transit-, people-, and pedestrian-oriented. Ground floor uses and design should be pedestrian-oriented. Objective LU-JJJ: Where Commercial Corridor areas intersect other land use designations, recognition of a transition and/or buffer between uses should be incorporated into redevelopment plans. Policy LU-368. Consideration of the scale and building style of near-by residential neighborhoods should be included in development proposals. Policy LU-369. Development should be designed to consider potential adverse impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting, landscaping, and setbacks should all be considered during site design. Policy LU-370. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and screening devices such as berms and fencing should be employed to reduce impacts (e.g. visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent, less intensive uses. 14.10, [X-58 ATTACHMENT C Renton Auto Mall Discussion: The Renton Auto Mall is intended to serve several purposes on behalf of the City and business community. It increases vehicle sales and corresponding tax revenue returned to the City. It has special development standards that are predictable, cohesive, and uniform throughout the District. It is easily accessible from regional interstate transportation systems, and improves and increases values of underdeveloped property. The Auto Mall, by providing a District for this concentrated activity, allows land that might otherwise be used for vehicle sales and service to be reutilized more efficiently in other Districts, such as the Urban Center. Additional benefits may accrue to both City residents and people on a regional basis due to the opportunity to comparison shop and conveniently participate in activities related to auto sales and service. Objective LU-KKK: Provide support for a cohesive Commercial Corridor District specifically for the concentration of auto- and vehicular-related businesses in order to increase their revenue and the sales tax base for the City. Policy LU-371. The Renton Auto Mall should be primarily located along SW Grady Way, between Oakesdale Ave. S.W. and Williams Ave. S., but may be expanded beyond this area as warranted. Policy LU-372. The objectives and policies of the Commercial Corridor designation should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning within Auto Mall District A and by the underlying zoning in Auto Mall District B. Objective LU-LLL: In order to further the continued cohesiveness of the Auto Mall Improvement District, a right-of-way improvement plan should be completed, adopted, and implemented by the City in coordination with property owners and auto dealers. Policy LU-373. The coordinated right-of-way improvement plan should address area gateways, signage, landscaping, circulation, and shared access. Policy LU-374. A designated gateway to the Auto Mall District should be made visually distinctive through the use of gateway features. Policy LU-375. In order to facilitate the consolidation of land into a cohesive district, fees and other compensation normally levied for street right-of-way vacation should be waived. Objective LU-MMM: Auto Mall Improvement District development standards, site planning, and project review should further the goal of the City to present an attractive environment for doing regional-scale, auto-related business. Policy LU-376. Landscaping along principal arterials should be uniform from parcel to parcel in order to further the visual cohesiveness of the District. cram IX-59 ATTAChM1ENT C Policy LU-377. On-site landscaping should consist of a minimum two and one half percent (2.5%) of the gross site area. Policy LU-378. On-site landscaping should primarily be located at site entries, in front of buildings, and at other locations with high visibility from public areas. Policy LU-379. Vehicle service areas should not be readily visible from public rights-of- way. Objective LU-NNN: Use of the Auto Mall District by pedestrians should be encouraged by improving safety and creating an attractive, "walkable"business environment. Policy LU-380. Designated walkways should be part of a larger network of pedestrian connections between businesses throughout the district. Policy LU-381. To enhance use of the Auto Mall Improvement District by pedestrians the following features should be used: • Wheel stops or curbs placed to prevent overhang of sidewalks by vehicle bumpers. • Customer parking located and clearly marked near site entries. • Coordinated dealer-to-dealer signage should be developed. NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor Discussion: The NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor is unique in the City due to the highly N1rrr eclectic mix of commercial and residential uses along its length. These integrated uses, located at a "gateway" to the Cite, 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-000: A special district should be designated along NE Sunset Boulevard. The purpose of this area would be to make the commercial environment more attractive to local and sub-regional shoppers so that local businesses will be more economically viable and the City's tax base will increase. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption date for the GMA update. Policy LU-382. Within the NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor, a"Business District" should include the commercial properties along NE Sunset Blvd. from Duvall Ave. N.E. to west of Union Ave. N.E. Policy LU-383. The NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor, due to its location on the east boundary of the City, should include City gateway features. Policy LU-384. The NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor, due to its location abutting Highlands Neighborhood Center, should be considered a gateway to that district and feature design elements that are coordinated with, and reflect the nature of the Highlands Center Village. IX-61) ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-385. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning. NIS Policy LU-386. Vehicle sales businesses existing in the NE Sunset Boulevard Business Corridor should be encouraged to relocate to the Renton Auto Mall District. Northeast Fourth Corridor Discussion: The Northeast Fourth Corridor is an active commercial area located at a gateway to the City. It features a wide variety of retail and service uses and several different structural forms from small professional offices to large-scale strip malls with major grocery anchors. Annexations of land into the City to the east of this commercial area and subsequent development of large single family housing projects has increased the market area for the Northeast Fourth Corridor considerably in recent years. Objective LU-PPP: A special commercial area should be designated along Northeast Fourth Street. The purpose of this area would be to enhance the commercial environment to increase revenue of local businesses and the City's tax base. Policy LU-387. Within the Northeast Fourth Corridor, the "Business District" should be bounded by Queen Avenue NE (on the west) and Field Ave N.E. (on the east). Policy LU-388. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the Northeast Ned 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 setback 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: IX-61 ATTACHMENT C 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. Attachment 2 Rainier Avenue Corridor Discussion: The Rainier Avenue Corridor is one of the most commercially viable areas of the City. Redevelopment of infrastructure and businesses in the Rainier Corridor would present the opportunity to strengthen the transition between the Corridor, a major transportation route through the west part of the City, and the Urban Center. Changes of this nature could increase the economic vitality of Renton's Downtown. Objective LU-RRR: A special district should be designated along Rainier Avenue. The purposes of this district would be to enhance the commercial environment in order to increase revenue of local businesses and the City's tax base, and to enhance the residential market with high-density mixed-use projects in order to increase residential opportunities in the City. Policy LU-393. Within the Rainier Avenue Corridor, the "Business District" should be bounded to the north by by Airport Way, on the east and west side of Rainier Avenue and bounded to the south by the Houser railroad trestle where it abuts the Auto Mall District. slaw Policy LU-394. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning. Policy LU-395. Uses in the Rainier Avenue Corridor should be primarily retail-oriented, and may have an emphasis on providing goods on a high-volume, vehicle-accessed basis, but should also provide high-quality and specialty goods. Policy LU-395a. Residential use should be limited to retail/office/residential mixed-use buildings that enhance the viability of the commercial environment and provide high- quality housing opportunities. Objective LU-SSS: Due to the nature of the retail core business in the Rainier Avenue Corridor, vehicular access and egress safety should be a primary consideration. Policy LU-396. In the Rainier Avenue Corridor access points to businesses fronting the principal arterial should be consolidated if at all possible and curb cuts reduced wherever feasible. Policy LU-397. Business signs in the Rainier Avenue Corridor should be uniform in size, content, and location to reduce visual clutter. Monument signs are the preferred type. IX-62 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-398. New billboard signs should be disallowed in the Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District due to the large scale of the signs in relation to the scale of the district. Existing signs should be well maintained so that visual impact is reduced. '444d Objective LU-TTT: The Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District should be enhanced to improve efficiency, safety and attractiveness to both potential shoppers and pedestrians using the public transportation system. Policy LU-399. In the Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District, due to significant pedestrian use of the intersections of Rainier Avenue and Sunset Boulevard/South Third Street, Rainier Avenue and South Third Place, and Rainier Avenue and South Fourth Street, sidewalk widths at these locations should be increased to create pedestrian corners whenever redevelopment occurs. Pavement should be increased for added pedestrian safety. Policy LU-400. On corners having high-volume pedestrian traffic, the paved sidewalk area should be increased in size. This may require a larger building setback at the corners of buildings when building facades abut the sidewalk. Policy LU-401. Pedestrian corners should include urban street furniture such as benches, an information kiosk, and a trash receptacle. Policy LU-402. Rainier Avenue should be improved with landscaped median and additional street trees to improve safety and appearance. Policy LU-403. Property owners and business owners should be encouraged to provide awnings or other weather protection on facades of buildings fronting sidewalks. Objective LU-UUU: The Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District is one of the busiest arterials in the City and is located as a gateway to the City from both the south and north. The design, function, and configuration of the District should reflect its status as a key gateway. Policy LU-404. The Rainier Avenue Corridor should feature gateway elements to the extent made possible by redevelopment. Policy LU-405. Signage in the Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District should include high quality City directional signs to the Urban Center, City Hall, IKEA Performing Arts Center, Piazza Park, City parking garage, library, museum, and other prominent public destinations. IX-63 ( ei (, T-------------5'fil' ,,,.h --- - - ---i-i cru -' :`o% -- Se( - -_ - -— .,,j CArri�_ 07 •'l e o-. ? to ° n, Z h P 4t a> 'a . SW �Q -s; CA SI 5h-. I,St�i 'Q ( '� 5th --, , m•. y'/%% ; ._IIS? =6th' 'Sf - �d -.- 'i , 0 /.././ ; , ,,_ I I, —; G SWtiff/S$; _ _ Sj r,7lth St ! 1 , I , r „.,./„.„,,,, .... „,./. . , /2,,./../...., .,/,, ./. , : , ,/,,,,.., ,,, .., // , ,,,,, _ , . /y// :. ".,, , , , I ;!/: / -- i,�l'tel / y / -y. , /SV j',//// / L ,;- 0 :///;,. 4300116 // / WiPiCti ` '-Q•i:-• :•-•":''.:- ,/, / / Aodiair — //;/r// / ,', , __...3211 �I �J ` 515 SW 16Th St. SWI 6th S-15th_St ; _ _. .N. - CA CA 0�: -__ _ - P \��. s 7 - > IS'17th'I St ‹,' Automall f- Automall Commercial Corridor-Area A ii, z eonm, DrvetopmenPy .4dghhorhnntl,k p.nm, ¢J,',, Automall Commercial Corridor -Area B P NE 18TH f a\c?.)\ � hlYaril . - 4i '1 S_10?tf� 1 i o Q - ; ` r s =1rt=C- Cf) CfCDwl - J_ z' . — -- U c_ - - - ; , t „-:, t;:- - l - 4'.I'4'-;;,';'. 3';'.:4':'s.' ; _mo — - � [A- ryk",0,.:`:'f..,„:,I..i.:_,,,, _ .,,,- -.i 1 1 ,. ,.. ai,,,,,::,,,:,,a7c4.;,i7zi„iit ..3.,,j;,7,,,119.:,,,,,I..,, 1 , , __ -� :..L i _ :ars;:_,—, \E 1 ..__ .•,,,: yy e, :,r I r - Cr) - 11 - ' F F a - � - 11tH NE Sunset Blvd Business District economic D.wlapmenC Ne1�pCorhond.t awi.cic el.nn� Pl P— Q Business District ( lik., ( i .. I 99-X1 Ask • ,. i ° ;.S3: i'1�'4�: 413. ra`reJ _ _ _ I ,.. 3y�[ ,iSItiJ" . :LTT , xa OI; �7 )R t' 94 _ :(� ,r..7'y?, Is p '-.1. '`_ '".3� ` ly `' . fqi f -Y _ _ cD , . ,..-.. •�F,.Le,P1',.p.,�lhcii:_ 4:�'.Ipw rG,l�t; •-- .!_'34'1:1 +�t .1vf-r£..i-:..-J.V, Y. Y' , ., ,11-5,,:r1-t:;::'.t� i,r,j, �.Ei T:.6'is,W];; .I ail,' 0 I -_''y k:;[fifl sem' I'1 _i• ., �'{�..`3:;'.e, ! - f.n ,.JS ..k"::.'. �k�I Vit. Iti:` j�5;'ic-_..,r3•=,i Hia:S.e='r :I.F."'.,TM :q i 15.G ..:I '._� 11 .:EICk 1I`Y. { f 1t: i 1 Ik • I If r:'i 1 s �, ` D 53.`,is-.I".'�1` - l�F r:-i;-``},[v�:f; s.,uf;:! - - �i•y'�•=�,T.';�iF:!3': s_`'�-",..moi�.l`� w:�.:- 3�x�':i`i�,� 4:411h F�iny.x.: :its '- .:. ;1(}2,.x:2. R; Bremerton Ave• `�1 :az,.a-.-----1,. .1, ;s..„ ;a' .t'I t. 0 I co m 1 • :v:i;r-.r s �:'?,Lta;!i'i8;.0" I`phaGi. --. - - -- CD Duvall Ave ,\ .F `�F' ` kr a4.1 ;r.. s valll Ave .f, ':�'i.ti5�br.:�. u:tin):,}" "� I 5yy"" _— — - - .q�rY„it y3, l.......„,..,„,,.„„:„„.,,..,..,4. ,I.::r _ 1F a (,2.S Lb`v ....I Y, f: "k-T•ii F:''; 5-#ani.. I •: _ - -_:. kC-� r,µa'k,11 3 y'-5 D `'r3,: „-'S-431? efE»tt TI" !41W.�: • _-_ . ",s:+t4 -� a 11iiyk li' • ;;• h'z _ 1'i'{h. Yk`:`,L7t fir. ._. .- • i. 9x :,jl,' 's,�.�-�r •�_..'Tr jy' - -- - Amok • • -I • • J 1N3bVHDVIIV I, , • ATTACHMENT C I ,,/ j , I ] 1 *lid _ r u i ''---________ , 1 1 1 _ ___J I 7 CA r_______________, r_ , I , ------ - - ---------,_-_T------ i \ r \ CA 7/ -, / CA I -7 r------,-,-; , , I --- -1i 1---1 r---'- ------_ --- - . !i 1 , 11 i_ // CA 1 , , Hi /_ ---- --____ , , ! 1 ---'-----=' I-- 1-1 .,-- --....„ --------„,.-, - CA r 1 - , . 1 , 1 / L i? ,,_ ,-- , • .i/ ,., 1 , ' 1 CA -- ,, CA lf-1 ; / ,_____., ,, , --!----: 14110111' / . , , -,,,----i i .., ...- \ .---. - \ \, \ \ , i , J i 1 i i i ) I -_.I__, LL ] , I-- I- ---1 1 • ,. I l' ' 17- ' 11 i 1 . 1 [-=-- /;// 1 i 11 ! 1 I i i [ ;. 1 I it__ i Li/ ' --1 r- ---------- \ H Rainier Business District C>(---" Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch,Administrator 14 June 2007 NAM004 IX-67 ATTACHMENT C COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION .r+ Purpose Statement: The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) designation provides opportunities for large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multi-family projects developed through a master plan and site plan process incorporation significant site amenities and/or gateway features. COR sites are typically transitions from an industrial use to a more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake Washington and/or the Cedar River. Objective LU-VVV: Development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations should be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity. Policy LU-406. Designate Commercial/Office/Residential in locations meeting the following criteria: 1) There is the potential for redevelopment, or a sufficient amount of vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development; 2) The COR site could function as a gateway to the City; 3) COR sites should be located on major transit and transportation routes; and 4) The COR location has significant amenity value, such as water access, that can support landmark development. °ow Policy LU-407. Consistent with the location criteria, Commercial/Office/Residential designations may be placed on property adjacent to, or abutting, residential, commercial, industrial designations or publicly owned properties. COR designations next to higher intensity zones such as industrial, or next to public uses, may provide a transition to less intense designations in the vicinity. Site design of COR should consider the long-term retention of adjacent or abutting industrial or public uses. Policy LU-408. Uses in Commercial/Office/Residential designations should include mixed-use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, recreational and cultural facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and development facilities; and corporate headquarters. Policy LU-409. Commercial uses such as retail and services should support the primary uses of the site and be architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. Policy LU-410. Commercial development, excluding big-box, may be a primary use in a Commercial/Office/Residential designation, if: 1) It provides significant economic value to the City; 2) It is sited in conjunction with small-scale, multiple businesses in a"business district;" 3) It is designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR; and 4) It is part of a proposed master plan development. IX-6S ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-411. Individual properties may have a single use if they can be developed at the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR designation, or if proposed as part of a sold 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 `rr� between 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The same area used for commercial and office development may also be used to calculate residential density. Policy LU-418. Commercial/Office/Residential master plans should be guided by design criteria specific to the location, context, and scale of the designated COR. COR Design Guidelines should fully integrate signage, building height, bulk, setbacks, landscaping, and parking considerations for the various components of each proposed project within the COR development. Policy LU-419. Internally, Commercial/Office/Residential developments should be primarily pedestrian-oriented. Internal site circulation of vehicles should be separated from pedestrians wherever feasible by dedicated walkways. Policy LU-420. Primary vehicular access to COR development should be from principal arterials. Internal streets should be sized hierarchically. Curb cuts should not conflict with pedestrian routes, if possible. Policy LU-421. Commercial/Office/Residential developments should have a combination of internal and external site design features, such as: 1) Public plazas; IX-69 • ATTACHMENT C 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Public access to natural features or views; 'tow 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-70 k ATTACHMENT C COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Commercial Neighborhood designation is to provide small scale, low-intensity commercial areas located within neighborhoods primarily for the convenience of residents who live nearby. Uses should be those that provide goods and services. In addition, a limited amount of residential opportunities should be provided. Objective LU-WWW: Commercial Neighborhood designated areas are intended to reduce traffic volumes, permit small-scale business uses, such as commercial/retail, professional office, and services that serve the personal needs of the immediate population in surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-422. The Commercial Neighborhood designation should be implemented by Commercial Neighborhood zoning. Policy LU-423. Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should be located: 1) Within one-quarter mile of existing and planned residential areas; 2) To the extent possible, outside of the trade areas of other small-scale commercial uses offering comparable goods and services; and 3) Contiguous to a street no smaller than those classified at the collector level. Policy LU-424. Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should not increase in scale or size to the point of changing the character of the nearby residential neighborhood. Policy LU-425. The small-scale uses of Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should not increase in intensity so that the character of the commercial area or that of the nearby residential area is changed. Policy LU-426. A mix of uses (e.g. convenience retail, consumer services, offices, residential) should be encouraged in small-scale commercial developments within Commercial Neighborhood designated areas. Policy LU-427. Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should consist primarily of retail and/or service uses. Policy LU-428. Products and services related to large-scale motorized machinery, vehicles, or equipment should not be allowed in Commercial Neighborhood designated areas. Nor should uses that result in emissions, noise, or other potential nuisance conditions be allowed in such areas. Policy LU-429. Residential uses should be located above the ground floor, limited to no more than four units per structure and should be secondary to retail and services uses. IX-71 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-430. Commercial structures in Commercial Neighborhood designated areas should be compatible with nearby residential areas in height, front yard setbacks, lot Now coverage, building design, and use. Noir' Nose IX-72 ATTACHMENT C XI. EMPLOYMENT AREAS Goal: Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial, high technology, office, and commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a strengthening of Renton's employment base. Discussion: These policies are designed to ensure that Renton will have adequate reserves of land and appropriate use designations to further its economic development efforts. Adequate land is necessafy to attract new businesses in an effort to expand and diversify, and stabilize the employment base. There are two Employment Area Land Use Designations: 1) Employment Area —Industrial 2) Employment Area — Valley Flexibility is encouraged in the Employment Areas by allowing a range of uses and multiple users on sites. Research and development businesses may need to evolve into production and distribution facilities as products are developed and receive approval for marketing. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses. Objective LU-XXX: Encourage economic growth resulting in greater diversity and stability in the employment and tax bases by providing adequate land capacity through ,400 zoning amounts of land to meet the needs of future employers. Policy LU-431. The City should endeavor to expand its present economic base, emphasizing new technologies, research and development facilities, science parks, and high-technology centers, and supporting commercial and office land uses. Policy LU-432. In each employment designation, an appropriate mix of commercial, office, light industrial, and industrial uses should be supported. The mix will vary depending on the employment area emphasis. Policy LU-433. Encourage flexibility in use and reuse of existing, conforming structures to allow business to evolve in response to market and production requirements. Policy LU-434. Support location of commercial and service uses in proximity to office or industrial uses to develop nodes of employment supported by services. Objective LU-YYY: Promote the development of low impact, light industrial uses, particularly those within the high-technology category, in Employment Area-Valley and Employment Area-Industrial designations where potentially adverse impacts can be mitigated. IX-73 J y ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-435. Site planning review should ensure that light industrial uses are neither intrusive nor adversely affected by other uses nearby. ikome EMPLOYMENT AREA-INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The Employment Area-Industrial designation is intended to provide continued opportunity for manufacturing and industrial uses that create a strong employment base in the City. Discussion: Although location is an important factor for all types of development, it is especially critical for industrial development. Industries need good access in areas with low traffic volumes. As the City becomes more urban, they need assurance that incompatible uses will not be allowed that could eventually force them to relocate. Other uses, especially residential, also want to ensure that industries do not impact their neighborhoods with noise, traffic, and other nuisances and hazards. For these reasons, although commercial areas may see more diversity and mixing of uses, industrial areas tit'ill remain somewhat isolated from other uses. Objective LU-ZZZ: Sustain industrial areas that function as integrated employment activity areas and include a core of industrial uses and other related businesses and services, transit facilities, and amenities. Policy LU-436. The primary use in the Employment Area - Industrial designation should be industrial. Policy LU-437. A mix of offices, light industrial, warehousing, and manufacturing should be encouraged in the Employment Area-Industrial classification, with conditions as appropriate. Policy LU-438. Industrial uses with a synergistic relationship should be encouraged to locate in close proximity to one another. Policy LU-439. Industrial parks that provide space for several related or unrelated, but compatible users should be encouraged to: 1) Include more than one industrial use organized into a single development; 2) Share facilities such as parking, transit facilities, recreation facilities, and amenities; 3) Include properties in more than one ownership; 4) Locate in areas with adequate regional access to minimize their impacts on the local street network; and 5) Organize the site plan to place building fronts to the street with service and parking screened from the front. Policy LU-440. Existing industrial activities may create noise, chemicals, odors, or other potentially noxious off-site impacts. Within the Employment Area-Industrial designation existing industrial activities should be protected. Although the designation allows a wide range and mix of uses, new businesses that would be impacted by pre-existing industrial activities should be discouraged. IX-74 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-441. When more intensive new uses are proposed for locations in close proximity to less intensive existing uses, the responsibility for mitigating any adverse impacts should be the responsibility of the new use. vosioti Policy LU-442. Off-site impacts from industrial development such as noise, odors, light and glare, surface and ground water pollution, and air quality should be controlled through setbacks, landscaping, screening and/or fencing, drainage controls, environmental mitigation, and other techniques. Policy LU-443. Light industrial uses that result in noise or odors, should be located in the Employment Area-Industrial designation. EMPLOYMENT AREA-VALLEY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Employment Area-Valley designation is to allow the gradual transition of the Valley from traditional industrial and warehousing uses to more intensive retail service and office activities. The intent is to allow these new activities without making industrial uses non-conforming and without restricting the ability of existing businesses to expand. Objective LU-AAAA: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office, and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton. Policy LU-444. Develop the Green River Valley ("The Valley") and the Black River Valley (located between Sunset Blvd and SW Grady Way) areas as places for a range and variety of commercial, office, and industrial. Niad Policy LU-445. Non-employment-based uses, such as residential, are prohibited in the Employment Area - Valley. Policy LU-446. Multi-story office uses should be located in areas most likely to be served by future multi-modal transportation opportunities. A greater emphasis on public amenities is appropriate for this type of use. Policy LU-447. Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site utilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including: 1) Shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities; 2) An improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; and 3) An opportunity to provide support services (e.g. copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities, express mail services) for nearby development that otherwise might not exist. Policy LU-448. Uses such as research, design, and development facilities should be allowed in office designations and industrial designations when potential adverse impacts to surrounding uses can be mitigated. IX-75 t t ATTACHAIENT C Policy LU-449. Recognize viable existing and allow new industrial uses in the Valley, while promoting the gradual transition of uses on sites with good access and visibility to N.., more intensive commercial and office use. Objective LU-BBBB: Provide flexibility in the regulatory processes by allowing a variety of zoning designations in the Employment Area-Valley designation. Policy LU-450. Changes from one zone to another should be considered to achieve a balance of uses that substantially improves the City's economic / employment base. Factors such as increasing the City's tax base, improving efficiency in the use of the land, and the ability of a proposed land use to mitigate potential adverse land use impacts should be considered. Policy LU-451. Commercial Arterial (CA) should be supported only when the proposed commercial use has access to SW 43rd Street, and/or East Valley Road south of SW 27th Street or is located north of I-405 and south of 10th Avenue SW and the area under consideration is part of a designation totaling over 5 acres (acreage may be in separate ownerships). Policy LU-452. Zoning supporting industrial uses should be established when a mix or wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site. Policy LU-453. Properties lying between SR-167 and East Valley Road from SW 22nd Street to SW 41st Street should not be granted an industrial zone classification that is more intensive than Light Industrial in order to avoid the potential for degradation of the high visibility SR 167 corridor. ‘44•00r Policy LU-454. Commercial Office zoning should be supported where a site has high visibility, particularly in those portions of the Valley that are gateways and/or along the 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-CCCC: Ensure quality development in Employment Area-Valley. Policy LU-455. Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development within the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses (Refer to the Community Design Element). Policy LU-456. Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged. Incentives should be offered to encourage shared parking. Policy LU-457. Site design for office uses and commercial, and mixed-use developments should consider ways of improving transit ridership through siting, locating of pedestrian amenities, walkways, parking, etc. Policy LU-458. Site plan review should be required for all new projects in the Employment Area-Valley pursuant to thresholds established in the City's development regulations. Policy LU-459. New development, or site redevelopment, should conform to development standards that include scale of building, building facade treatment to reduce perception of bulk, relationship between buildings, and landscaping. Now IX-76 Z. SE i6�.t _- - roc nam m 2, A iM SE 218th St - - r Wn H - -- - - SE 219th Et Qetd 8th F: aCD _ o. rl SE 2220th St _ o 7 SE 222nd St v� 1111 � �. `t SE 219th St \\\ a \_.., ,: _ SE 222nd St This document is o graphic representation, not guaranteed to survey accuracy, intended for city purposes only and based on the best information available as of the date shown. This map is for display purposes only. 2000 4000 2.222,... D I 1 : 24000 CITYOFRENTON c__, ,_,. Proposed C217 0- E oi n Comprehensive o._ J. ,D m Q MIC DEVELOPMENT Land Use Plan , ,ethnical Services Visneski J vember 20, 2007 `� 0 —h CD a ( ( A f � ATTACHMENT E TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS 1. Contribute to a balanced multi-modal transportation system through reasonable, planned, economically feasible arterial improvements that enhance HOV and transit operations, support adopted land use plans,protect or improve business access, and protect Renton's neighborhoods. 2. Maximize the use of transit in Renton by providing step-by-step transit improvements to produce regionally linked and locally oriented transit services and facilities needed to serve travel demand generated by Renton residents and businesses. 3. Increase the person-carrying capacity of the Renton arterial system by the construction of improvements and the implementation of actions that facilitate the flow of HOVs into, out of, and through Renton. 4. Maintain, enhance, and increase pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing both safe and convenient routes and storage for the commuting and recreating public. 5. Encourage and facilitate the reduction of commute and other trips made via single occupant vehicles. 6. Create efficiently functioning air transportation facilities that are responsibly integrated with the City's transportation system and land use pattern. Now 7. Maintain and improve truck and freight rail access to Renton industrial areas, and integrate freight transportation needs into Renton's multi-modal transportation system. 8. Develop a funding and implementation program for needed transportation improvements supporting adopted land use policies, that distributes transportation costs equitably between public agencies and private development. 9. Develop a transportation system that contributes to the attainment and maintenance of regional air and water quality standards within the City of Renton, and complies with regional, state, and Federal air water quality standards, and preserves/protects natural resources. 10. Develop and maintain relationships between Renton and other agencies and local jurisdictions for cooperative planning of common transportation improvements, and discussion of transportation-related interests. erre x1-1 � t ATTACHMENT E TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary XI-6 General Policies XI-6 Growth Management Act Requirements XI-7 Street Network XI-8 Objectives XI-8 Policies XI-8 Inventory of Existing Streets XI-10 Street System Characteristics XI-12 Existing Street Functional Classifications XI-12 Traffic Volumes and Forecasts XI-12 Level of Service Policy XI-20 Level Of Service Standard XI-21 Arterial Plan XI-23 Transit XI-32 Objectives XI-32 Policies XI-32 Existing Transit Service XI-33 Local Access XI-33 Eastside Connections XI-34 South King County Connections XI-34 East-West Connections XI-34 Downtown Transit Center XI-34 Custom Bus Service XI-34 Park-and-Ride Facilities XI-34 Future Regional Accessibility XI-37 Transit Plan XI-37 Level of Service XI-40 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) XI-42 Objectives XI-42 Policies XI-42 Existing HOV Facilities XI-42 HOV Plan XI-43 Level of Service XI-47 Non-Motorized Transportation XI-48 Objectives XI-48 Policies XI-48 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities XI-49 Neighborhood and Regional Access XI-52 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan XI-52 Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) XI-55 Objectives XI-55 Policies XI-55 Existing Parking Supply and Demand XI-56 Parking Policy Review XI-58 Employers'Mode Split XI-58 TDM/CTR Programs XI-58 XI-2 f � ATTACHMENT E Parking Management Regulations XI-60 , Airport XI-60 Objectives XI-60 Policies XI-60 Airport Facilities XI-61 Airport Activities XI-61 Airport Master Plan Relevant Documents XI-62 Airport Master Plan Implementation XI-62 Freight XI-62 Objectives XI-62 Policies XI-63 Truck Routes XI-63 Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users XI-66 Regional Accessibility XI-67 Financing and Implementation XI-68 Objectives XI-68 Policies XI-69 Transportation Program Costs XI-69 Inventory of Funding Sources XI-69 Funding Program XI-72 Funding Assessment XI-78 Mitigation Process XI-79 Concurrency Management System XI-80 Environmental and Natural Resources XI-82 Objectives XI-82 Policies XI-82 *errAir Quality -- Implementation Plan XI-82 Improving Water Quality XI-83 Intergovernmental Coordination XI-83 Objectives XI-84 Policies XI-84 Current Coordination Activities XI-84 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions XI-86 Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan XI-86 Strategies to Address Inconsistencies XI-86 Ongoing Transportation Plan Work XI-77 XI-3 ATTACHMENT E TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Existing Street/Highway System Figure 1-2 Arterial System Characteristics Figure 1-3 Arterial System Functional Classifications Figure 1-4 2000 Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 1-5 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 1-6 Renton Arterial Plan Figure 1-7 Arterial Plan Improvements Figure 2-1 Existing Transit Service Figure 2-2 Regional Transit System Figure 2-3 Renton Transit Plan Figure 3-1 Renton HOV Plan Figure 4-1 Existing Non-Motorized Facilities Figure 5-1 Downtown Core Existing Parking Summary 2001 Figure 5-2 Renton Active CTR Sites Figure 7-1 Truck Routes XI-4 t 1 ATTACHMENT E TABLE OF TABLES `err Table 1.1 Renton Arterial Plan Table 4.1 Proposed Bicycle Routes Table 5.1 Central Subarea Parking Summary Table 8.1 20-Year(Transportation Program Cost Table 8.2 Source of Transportation Funds Table 8.3 City of Renton Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) 2007-2012 NNW XI-5 J ATTACHMENT E SUMMARY The Transportation Element of Renton's Comprehensive Plan serves several purposes. In addition to meeting the State Growth Management Act(GMA) requirements for a transportation element, it assists the City in coordinating transportation planning with land use planning and adequately serving existing and future residential and employment growth. The Transportation Element, sometimes called a Transportation Plan, also provides direction on coordinating the development of a multi-modal system, which is a system that accommodates various modes of transportation. Finally, the transportation element coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in adjacent jurisdictions and the region. This coordination is an important element in creating an effective system and in competing for transportation funding. The goal of the Renton Transportation Element is to provide "a balanced multi-modal transportation system that will support land use patterns, and adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth within the City." (A multi-modal system is defined as one which provides various choices of transportation for the public such as automobiles, buses, rail,transit, bicycles, walking.) The main objective guiding the development of the Transportation Element is to be consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies, the State's Growth Management Act, County-wide Planning Policies, and Commute Trip Reduction(CTR) legislation. Another key objective of the Transportation Element is to "coordinate land use and transportation planning." This is a requirement of the State's Growth Management Act. The Transportation Element must also be coordinated with the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) VISION 2020 and Destination 2030 (the adopted long-range growth and transportation strategy for the Central Puget Sound area King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties). A companion regional document is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), also produced by the PSRC, which specifically addresses regional transportation and how jurisdictional transportation plans fit within the regional context. This City of Renton Transportation Element is consistent with GMA, VISION 2020, Destination 2030, and the MTP. The Comprehensive Plan(and Transportation Element) was adopted on November 1, 2004. Subsequent transportation planning work and enactment of development regulations that are consistent with, and help implement, the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element have resulted in the most recent amendments (December 12, 2005 and November 27, 2006) to the Comprehensive Plan (and Transportation Element). As noted above, the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to create a desirable land use pattern and serve land uses with a multi-modal transportation system. This Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan comprises a set of framework transportation policies to support Renton's land use Vision and a more detailed and technical plan for implementation of the framework policies. The Transportation Element encompasses several chapters, including Street Network,Transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), Non-Motorized Transportation, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction(TDM/CTR), Airport, Freight, Financing and Implementation, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Intergovernmental Coordination. Some of the transportation policies apply to specific chapters; the policies compiled below apply to all of the chapters. General Policies XI-6 ATTACHMENT E Policy TA. Land use plans and regulations should Policy T-5. Land use and transportation plans 'oft., be used to guide development of the Transportation should be consistent so that land use and adjacent Element for the City. transportation facilities are compatible with each Policy T-2. Transportation improvements should other. Land use capacity/forecast assumptions used support land use plans. in capacity/forecast modeling should be used in estimating travel demand. Policy T-3. Transportation plans should be phased concurrently with growth. Policy T-6. Land use patterns should support transit and non-motorized modes of travel. Policy T-4. Adequate transportation facilities and Policy T-7. The disruptive impacts of traffic services should be in place at the time of occupancy related to centers and employment areas should be or an adopted strategy must be in place to provide reduced. those facilities within six years of the approval of new development. (In this context, disruptive impacts are primarily traffic. They could be mitigated by implementing programs, such as transportation management programs implemented through cooperative agreements at the work place, flexible work hours, and/or sub-area planning policies supporting increased density.) Increased land use densities and a balance of land use mixes in an urban setting will result in fewer and shorter vehicle trips. As people begin to live closer to employment and shopping, they will no longer need to drive to these facilities and they will be able to link trips, resulting in fewer vehicle trips. In addition to the Transportation-Land Use interaction, another issue that pervades many of the chapters of the Transportation Element is that of parking. The location and supply of parking is an integral part of the local transportation system. Inadequate parking can increase congestion on streets as people circle and hunt for 1401' available spaces. Too much parking is an inefficient use of land and can deter transit use. A proper balance needs to be achieved between parking supply and demand. Satellite parking and shuttle services and collective structured parking are potential methods for increasing the parking supply. Note: Any references in this document to downtown parking restrictions and/or removal apply only to commuter/employee parking and not to business patron/customer parking. Growth Management Act Requirements The Growth Management Act specifies the following minimum requirements for information that is to be included in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; 2. Facilities and service needs, including: a. An inventory of air,water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit routing, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; b. Level of service standards for the transportation system to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated, and adopted Level of Service (LOS)policy and/or standards for state facilities shall be stated in local transportation plans. c. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established LOS standard; �rrr XI-7 ATTACHMENT F d. Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; e. Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to meet current and future demands; 3. Demand Management Strategies 4. Finance, including: a. An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; b. A multi-year financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities; c. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that LOS standards will be met; 5. Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions. STREET NETWORK Traffic generated by employment centers,regional pass-through traffic using local streets, and truck traffic all contribute to congestion and reduced accessibility within the City of Renton. In resolving traffic flow problems, a number of choices will need to be made. In some cases, increasing traffic flows only increase congestion on local streets or impact pedestrians, yet if traffic flows are reduced accessibility can be compromised. Alternately, if the local street system is efficient and not congested it will attract increased regional traffic. The objectives and policies in the Street Network chapter are intended to reduce the amount of traffic that has neither an origin nor destination in the City of Renton while at the same time providing reasonable levels of traffic flow and accessibility on the local street system. These objectives and policies also address issues related to the street network as a system, the physical design of individual roadways, traffic flow, and traffic operations control. The Street Network Chapter contains a detailed review of the City of Renton's street system—including existing functional classifications as well as a description of Renton's Arterial Plan. The Street Network Chapter also contains discussion of the Level of Service criteria used to judge performance of the system. (The service levels were developed in conjunction with King County adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies and other local jurisdictions.) Objectives The Street Network Chapter is based on the following objective: T-A: Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable vehicular circulation throughout the City while enhancing the safety and function of the local transportation system. Policies XI-8 1 i ATTACHMENT E Policy T-8. Each street in the City should be Policy T-14. Proactively work with the state and `0•00. assigned a functional classification based on factors neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on including traffic volumes, type of service provided, regional transportation systems and to reduce land use, and preservation of neighborhoods. regional traffic on local streets. Policy T-9. Streets and pedestrian paths in Policy T-15. Develop strategies to reduce adverse residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an traffic impacts on local areas. (areas of the City interconnecting network that serves local traffic and that require this type of intervention should be facilitates pedestrian circulation. identified and addressed through the sub-area planning process, neighborhood plans, or traffic Policy T-9.1. Street vacations should be supported mitigation programs that are implemented through when: development review.) • The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed for future public use; Policy T-16. Access management, such as • The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed restricting left turns and excessive use of for the interconnection of the roadway system; driveways, should be coordinated with design • The abutting property owners have standards and land use in order to enhance public demonstrated a need for the street vacation; safety and preserve traffic carrying capacity. and, • The resultant road configuration, after the street (Also see related policies in the HOF, Transit, Non- vacation, conforms to adopted City plans. motorized and Freight sections of this Element and oldie Community Design Element.) Policy T-9.2. Street vacations should only be supported in Downtown and neighborhoods that have developed around a traditional grid system ''' when the resultant road configuration after the street vacation does not significantly interrupt the function of the overall grid system. Policy T-10. Street standards should continue to be based on functional classification, land use objectives, and HOV/transit/non-motorized facility needs. (The street standards should be coordinated with the objectives and policies of the Community Design Element.) Policy T-11. A level of service should be maintained that: maximizes mobility by emphasizing transit and HOV improvements; is coordinated with level of service standards of adjacent jurisdictions; and meets State requirements under GMA and concurrency. Policy T-12. Traffic flow on and accessibility to arterial streets should be managed to maximize person-carrying capacity. Policy T-13. Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased through traffic while maintaining access to neighborhoods. XI-9 ATTACHMENT E Inventory of Existing Streets The existing street/highway system serving Renton is shown in Figure 1-1. The system includes two freeways: Interstate-405 and State Route-167 (the "Valley Freeway"). Interstate 405 provides connections to the Eastside and Snohomish County to the north, and to I-5 and the Sea-Tac Airport area to the south. The Valley Freeway extends south from I-405 to Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup. In addition to the freeways, Renton is served by several other state highways, including SR-900 (Sunset Boulevard), SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway), SR-515 (Benson Highway), and SR-167 (Rainier Avenue). Each of these state highways are integral elements of Renton's internal arterial system. In addition, SR-900 provides external connections to Issaquah on the east and to the Boeing Field area and I-5 on the west. SR- 169 connects Renton to SR-18 and southeast King County, SR-515 provides the main arterial connection to the unincorporated Soos Creek area, and the Rainier Avenue section of SR-167 connects Renton with south Seattle. xI-'o ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-1 N'"'' RENTON STREET/HIGHWAY SYSTEM Existing Street/Highway System _'-` ' J rpt Legend r.',s`#:: `ETT e� i — Transportation ,=e 4- ,C1 F V,.' City Linur r �; a ' 9 Renton Plan (`\ -� J Planning Arca ./ 1 1 I' 'castle I,S_ti �' a .'x f \gyp s -z .3i��� ,ii-H \E H \ i ,,,,,,,\1, { rff\ - t - A\eashm$t° --t I f\ L-x 7'1L r , r ,S a � _ ' s ' �i - ,i,)_.i 'Tl` Il .1` Z as t. t t 1 Tr-7 i � I r. n . 1 __ - !:l m ` .' '`- ',� I irk---I _I -1-- J L ,,,,i -D --1_„H --H.! ,. _ -- _f_ \A i I 1 z -Si HI :-.. _ \, .\-I`_[J�I�I'-'-'s:‘-{I,- -.,1 l- t_�' m i N:St tG., ___,. r - I NE 4th S1 __-17-7--f 1 .l�_ I . �, 1 1.-'-Ti- _: .-°n- ._.4 -1_,,,f l ' N1kd i1-7 I,r 'Yd/ I- I I r- r -41"__—;7— _ E.,_ Irp;TWa I /_� — 1 I 11 _‘4411111e. 1� 9,,,;:;.--_-_- -,,,ii` = IL4-li-5z.dli ORenton �--r.,t-i �� _ ' _ r i3' Y',_I I, , T v— �y —suIt �t��� �� _I '�: .'�_ 1 — ,f f 1•- C' ,-- a�.�, , 1_•r GO-1- - - 1 r , I I IIS - tl -',?---I!----- „,t,"I' __-1.` ��� .-'i:r \,,,, \ i 4- fl--------1----1 �;1 L ' I VI t- 6 ��o)�y,� \;;titJ'<• '� � --� T = _ -;.\ L J '1 i i ll I nN• _u9e}.`i,C'(�F1��,lt� -'' -I 11I� _ I.1 she �'-�� i1 SW 27th o I Yi 11=— -- . ik— Hi\1 =i ti a � � l.of � Tuk 14 _ :1 1I =( 1 i . 1 };� 'K1 I r j f ' 11 ---- • 1-`t '� I _ U \ Petrontsky'. `fir_ _J_1' r ;./ -_ _ ----_-_-_:_i-77-,--,.:, J r<� I nIT� - {= L / `/ I , -t'‘ 'I 1 I-1-- _I I it., $T192nd SI LP , I c.-.,-:::,,,,,,, .‘ , Py:' l A J _I I I I --____A----.) seen;. 4t.: 1 •t r.r-YZ�r, v:„It.m�.rk� f -- I1111 _ I :J I I J , J z I I .':L1 3rz._ { . y 7 XI-1 1 ATTACHMENT E Six routes, I-405, SR-167, SR-900, SR-169, SR-515, and SR-167, converge in central Renton within a half mile radius of each other. This close proximity results in a complex traffic flow, as regional and local trips interact within a relatively short distance. rd Other key arterials that tie together the Renton street system include Grady Way and S.W. 43Street in the Valley, Talbot Road and Puget Drive in southeast Renton,Park Avenue and Park Drive, Logan Avenue, and Airport Way in Central Renton, and 3td Street/4`h Street, Duvall,Union, and Edmonds Avenues in East Renton. These arterials, with numerous other arterial streets, link commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhoods to the freeways and state highways. Within neighborhoods, local access streets provide internal circulation and connections to the arterials. Street System Characteristics Physical and traffic control characteristics of the Renton street system, including the location of traffic signals and one-way streets, and the number of lanes on arterial street segments, are shown in Figure 1-2. Existing Street Functional Classifications The purpose of functional classifications is threefold: i) to identify appropriate uses for Renton streets, ii)to establish eligibility for road improvement funding from various sources, and iii)to define appropriate street design standards. The arterial street functional classifications specified by the City of Renton include "Principal Arterial," "Minor Arterial," and "Collector Arterial" classifications. The adopted classifications in Renton, and the surrounding annexation areas of unincorporated King County, and on several roadways in adjacent City of Newcastle are shown in Figure 1-3. "Principal Arterials" are streets and highways that connect major intra-city activity centers, have primarily high traffic volumes that travel at relatively fast vehicle speeds, and therefore, have less emphasis on land use access. Grady Way in south central Renton and N.E. 3`d/4"' Street in East Renton are examples of principal arterials. "Minor Arterials" are streets that provide links between principal arterials and collector arterials, and carry moderately high traffic volumes at less vehicle speed than on principal arterials. These arterials also connect intra-city activity centers with some emphasis on land use access. Southwest 7`f' Street in west central Renton and Union Avenue in northeast Renton are examples of minor arterials. "Collector Arterials" are streets that distribute traffic between principal and minor arterials and local access streets. Collector arterials include streets that provide major traffic circulation with more emphasis on land use access within commercial and industrial areas, and residential neighborhoods. East Valley Road in southwest Renton and N.E. 12``' Street in northeast Renton are examples of collector arterials. Local access streets include all public streets not classified as principal, minor, or collector arterials. Local access streets primarily provide direct access to abutting land uses and are to be designed to discourage use by through traffic. These streets are identified by default on Figure 1-3 and are not listed in the legend. Traffic Volumes and Forecasts Existing(2000) and forecasted 2022* traffic volumes have been analyzed to reflect: i) latest regional and Renton land use modifications ii) latest regional transportation plans, and Renton Arterial, HOV and transit plans; iii) latest Renton mode split assumptions; and, iv)refinements to the City of Renton transportation model. XI-12 ATTACHMENT E *NOTE: Renton's transportation model utilizes regional land use data and trip tables provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for the horizon years 2000 to 2020. For the 2022 traffic volume forecast, a linear growth rate was calculated (from 2000 to 2020)and then applied to the 2020 traffic volumes to obtain 2022 volume forecasts. Arterial Traffic Volumes In order to show the overall level and pattern of utilization of the Renton street/highway system, 2000 and 2022 daily two-way traffic volumes were compiled(see Figures 1-4 and 1-5). The 2022 volumes reflect a freeway/arterial network comprised of facilities existing in 2000 and the following arterial and HOV improvements which are assumed to be implemented by 2022. w err+ XI-13 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-2 ARTERIAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Ned Arterial System Characteristics (2006) I, Legend \I, i Signalized • Transportation /�" � �€NT� Intersection il _Y �� Number er Plan ;t ((\1 z I. 1%hcastle of Lanes — I I J City , . /' . 1 ;d►., 111t'lli1 Ci Limit / Renton a I 1 PlanningArea H ��— �� Iros<��< \ _ n ' ''_ g— J so mY . . ;\ _fi 2-\_-_-_, ----=-- -,- I �k�, IAITI ashcugtou- - t .`` _X114'. _ i . I as 'rlt �' I -- Indiu11 - RI' —i \� 11 ' 'soo Willillell" EIL - ..'' i ' g11-41"11111111= mn. i , &41111mlimp tliPi-P1,174_,),+ „..-7,,,,4• �Il�lir, 111, • 4 ii r ,1t, f�l5k�ti10 ►� t l� \IN!�9 , L;: aap9��`y J - - 0_,' �� ,• ry uiRenton , __ . e — — — . 6soo48 F�C�,hRt�A©614 v I 1 \\.. t11u 3 iiiilipiv�11.t+.J, �� all I' - II 06, �r WS "� r� j�-P • t✓' --Illitli ,i 2art '' IL • : it r imi s I, ', `. AIMS [Insert I , 1111C Z 2 4_l MN,I,a all — • �. 3 1il lulu .4o, I, E! �, 2,1 iE!4IW p 1F24 Z� 2b, ., „- . 2 2 '3 � —�,4� 3/111 ; L ,,,' x JW4W' \ A IA. .1.. I i � 1221_____,, � � l l , nt , aLr-sn ,. I XI-14 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-3 ARTERIAL SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS *1101 f o I = C a _ 2 o � k v g a a ag I E « 1 r m i 1 I s « .1 ' e i 414 jiI a gtd Uli;i JallIa�I, y 1iligi 1 S c 4 = 11 8d f i1 s ib If* fq-4--€4 li ti e a3 N lagla3all : 'rill ��� g >Wkig� 9 1 i 3 1= 1-11P411 8 i ''WI t11411111111111131$ sllia It ii k ti 5 Z soder «4Si 3 e-.+n."- 3 a.tdraq Amma,ggXan,A t !,� t.' 8� « Y a c p,11 Ee ga tit F; na A 1" .; g t €y 3� :aaa�":+�qlf $k l� lla ;l=6'e�n« fl o �r 3;1'�t` �5li&ndb°c°? ,�3jxaa- ! t s ;` a ,g= �� S a- v 111111101111j011! 1 g m"!lli 1 Pai" !; "fi = w, 9€illi as d#s 1" 1_ i ,Ifpa d 1 {a��°! # �-E�f �� r«� iliY'�6a-a; aa�,�#"j�I<=„ tRill 116 iLll t «p �411f1!€1«sllj4%! Sg< terltE1111=�g !t4Ig mullgal g Alli intitift!!!!il! I gii= _ ii#°=e?atta]zi vol p, -.,,,,,..-..s --.,.-lOgggX 3 4xa***A04d*****1-uld RY:i* 6 si=�:s:44:.kzFaa.aa9eEaR=-,,=- cre c Ry , u 1 , r_'\ 1 * y. 1 d t C �<lP k_ r fiaa���c.+��'.-(-[(�'�r-"•`dtTe♦ 1 3 'a• i@ tio 12 x AVM, ao lel ; ° d f ice/ =r�• �7g11� S; p '���,1�1' /`) ya r. ^' J, I. , � ditiiqA 1 .rte awl SE a���� JII*J:/ tji' er' _ _-,* S y -,,a,:-.-.Tr:-.. t b r+s a oo� 4fie/ __ I. =r• i> pigil, LE 0.41 Vii_ I mow_ Ku`� q-.6 t *. I p1gt R p��— i d� � ` 1 p b p ti `:IIi: lard r.s p,— witipuarunrmai. _ .JN A ' 41:t.''s 0/1".:'4'COldiErlf 1--,L,11—;;;,11 .. . . ...— , pew, , -' ponimmaLes tis Mill , XI-16 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-4 2000 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES *4Wi.. a i 4 \. iii" ' / ti -Ii castle Ii / .:/ u 1=ll,l t'- _ \:------ nibN I —� I k [aike Washington • 1�-=— R — < , �_1 ' ieMI Iglu in E �� ' t•'C�' r iii, ` Zq .alfa R� c e� 1' = � Ego L G�I� 1111.== eaus'''� ` 'i 0 �. moi® __ 1I� -, (,,� 11 1 )I - 1 �.l,1.) ). NE/th �� I- -� ''- : �! IIII enton v• 1: 14 I \1 — �. �Ltatim 169/ �. r� s ii Q1.. r il! .6 � 'IF IS �` ,..405 i 'i.11�1 �p 4, - Ott .'i i ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-5 2022 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES s ./ : 41I j -••::: \ /.- lb ; astle / � kJv '= a..,my& Mt Immull % ICU �� X11\. k Washington 1.4 —Q I � ��A��j, : A05 �� I � 111/11111 * 111111,1111_ Tg. .."mam�:1�,�• �111�1„04,`,��� Y--.L- ' 1 1II1_� �q ' f ,/ BODI �� ktiklimX i!`I. clii'. = � `1 � � , 41 `I► Imai 1 14`Z ;i lS s I � 990 �t, M:"�4-�'°a.74. 1 Renton — ��� ts, I Lird \ h--.'. \\\--- .4 ., ,.. ,et --Tioakein '<if---- -,P4 r---,. ii ,,,.. -r �frio..,, yrosglh :11.11„dire .‘0.‘ � ? ' ilit_ , -- .___ , , ��-tet�(( . Ilk 1� ,, ,k _. -' =ha _ . Et tlirsilishVIRr Tara, / if I: s�1,I Ira 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes 1.1iYI yea ' girt.,,, Legend �Il -, /^',�, � rag Ave e J'Y Dail Traffic ,1 _ 1� @ I ' y _ Transportation jid j A .amu r'i• I City Limit I , / Plan ino r–i 4E9 Renton 1 Planning Area xt-1s ATTACHMENT E Arterial improvements: '401•10` • Puget Drive Southeast—Benson Road to 116th Avenue Southeast • Southwest 27"'/Strander Boulevard Connection—Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to SR-181 • Duvall Avenue Northeast—Sunset Boulevard to City Limits • Widen Bronson Way—South 2"d Street to Sunset Boulevard • Lake Washington Boulevard—Park Drive to Coulon Park • Oakesdale Avenue—Monster Road to SR-900 • South Grady Way/Rainier Avenue South—Intersection Improvements • Northeast 44th Street—Ripley Lane to Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. • SR-167 / East Valley Road Off-Ramp • NE 3rd Street—Sunset Boulevard to Edmonds Avenue N.E. HOV improvements: • Full HOV interchange at I-405 /Northeast 44th Street • Add HOV lanes on I-5 —Seattle CBD to Tacoma • 1-405 HOV Direct Access at Park Drive or North 8th Street • Half or full HOV interchange at I-405/Benson Road or Talbot Road(SR-515) and 1-IOV lanes on SR-515 or Benson Road South from the new HOV interchange to Puget Drive • Half HOV interchange at SR-167/S.W. 27`h Street and HOV lanes on S.W. 27"' Street from SR- 167 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest • 1-IOV lanes or intersection queue jump on SR-169—Sunset Boulevard to east city limits • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on N.E. 3`d/N.E. 4th Street—1-405 to Monroe Avenue Northeast • Transit Lane—South Grady Way to South Third Street High-volume arterial corridors include Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, each with over 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd), and Renton Avenue,North Park Drive-Sunset Boulevard Northeast, Northeast 3`d Street/4th Street, Talbot Road South, Southwest 43rd Street and South Grady Way-Main Avenue South, each carrying over 20,000 vpd (volume numbers in 2000). The forecasted 2022 volumes show significant increases over 2000 volumes. On major arterial corridors, volumes are forecasted to increase on the order of 40% - 100% over the 22-year period. The highest-volume arterial corridor in 2022 is Rainier Avenue, with forecasted daily volumes of 20,000 66,000 through Renton. Maple Valley Highway(SR169) also has forecasted volumes in excess of 40,000 vpd. Other high- volume arterials with forecasted volumes in excess of 30,000 vpd are listed below: South Grady Way rd u Airport Way/Logan Avenue NE 3 Street/NE 4 Street North Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Sunset Boulevard North(west of I-405)th S/43- Street/ South Carr Road/SE 176—Street/Petrovitsky Road *r Traffic volumes on the freeway system are also forecasted to increase significantly by 2022, with daily volumes of over 200,000 on most segments of I-405 and over 120,000 on SR-167 (Valley Freeway) through XI-19 ATTACHMENT E Renton. The forecasted I-405 volumes are equivalent to current volumes on I-5 at the Ship Canal Bridge, where I-5 has eight mainline lanes plus four reversible roadway lanes (as compared to the two lanes plus an HOV lane in each direction on I-405). The I-405 Corridor is vital for regional connections between Renton Nard and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability. Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined using letter designations --A, B, C, D, E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single occupancy vehicle (SOV)travel. However,because of traffic congestion in the I-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. Renton's LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non- motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally-linked, locally-oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. XI-20 ATTACHMENT E The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto,HOV and transit elements of the LOS standard are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections, and it provides a multi-modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi-modal travel. The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following: • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and HOV travel times for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element)using the calibrated traffic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intra-Renton travel time to regional system, and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard(index)using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system, including State-owned facilities; and Sloe • Selecting a plan that maintains the established LOS standard. Other elements of the LOS implementation process include: • Monitoring the area to re-validate transportation plans; • Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; and • Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). Level Of Service Standard A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30- minute travel distance for SOV, HOV, and Transit as follows: 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* • Rounded XI-21 ATTACHMENT E As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle(SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle (HOV -carpool, vanpool) could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 rrr miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002) is then weighted by doubling it(to 6.8 miles) to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger-carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard,presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995,was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-2010)transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and examining the raw data,the 2002 LOS index was found to be 42. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: i) reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints (e.g. passage of Initiative 695); n) limited implementation of Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, in) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990—2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. With the 2002 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard 15* miles 17* miles 10* miles 42 * Rounded This standard will require that the travel time of SOV(15)+ HOV (17) +2 T (10) or the sum of these three modes (42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years. The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub-Elements that are designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development. To test against the LOS standard, the 2022 planned Arterial, HOV, and Transit improvements identified later in this Transportation Element are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traffic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV, HOV, and Transit* modes along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments of known distance) including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42. *Other factors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access time. Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton's LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995. lend XI-22 ATTACHMENT E LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS)(i.e. I-5, I-405, SR 167)have been adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT). For urban areas the adopted LOS lw standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways (non-HSS) in the Central Puget Sound region(i.e. SR-900, SR-169, SR-515) were adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 30, 2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges from LOS E/mitigated(pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E) to the traditional LOS D. (Further information on LOS standards for HSS and non-HSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton's modeling estimates of Renton's projected growth, and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities. These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton's city-wide travel-time based LOS standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Renton's Transportation Element has identified SOV, HOV, and transit-oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway system. Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOY improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi-modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or err improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7. The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila,Kent, and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit Plan and HOV improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of Service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2022. XI-23 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-6 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN XI-24 ATTACHMENT E Now • Renton Arterial Plan ' (2002 ro 2022) ` Legend 1 �� —, 6 I Transportation / '/ S It. City Lirnit \ r P Planning Area RentonPlan I 41 tle Principal Arterial -� '� ' �. li Minor Arterial ._. ..•� �l�11 ■';-. Collector Arterial - , ■ rl �•' Na To Sole IIIIIIMI ii, .., t�'���� ...,- . ..,,,... ...- . • • ��^` - i - --.lass 1\� . R. ,_ ,,, - ' 211111[ `y . ....„-lia 1111= E "���.!.......,,., ,...., „•,.._•„ - ..i.„. t'01.mawex. r te. IN�_ „liesp Ati likpite wil ill II 1 ��■� �� � 11111 n „� tail •I.ylreaM , .,111 I N• .P,P1 i�ra mi: --milmipalm =i tp4r 6 Renton• N-1€1! c `, Vim Ira '— , dI31 1 J1E �. illfr inn IR 1 I '� 1_'1 11 *owa U,, �1� li' 1I y ' 111 _ .... - soft *III , . ill ' Milli n1 m 1 Ilia'4f fS , `6. , ' • •MR1111.: A . • iir""7 `,--;"*„." 7.61ZE w C ' 5)i-V 1 1 if r---\\ ai _ n 1. ellic, Lake / ( -L. • � �� 1 I LII t x1-25 ATTACHMENT E TABLE 1.1 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN 2002—2022 IMPROVEMENTS 1. Bronson Way — South 2nd Street to Park Avenue North arterial improvements/bridge rehabilitation 2. South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements • Logan Ave N—North 6th to Garden Avenue N new arterial • Park Avenue N—North 6th to Logan Avenue N arterial widening • North 10th Street—Logan Avenue N to Garden Avenue N new street • North 8th Street—Logan Avenue N to Park Avenue N new street 3. CBD Streetscape street improvements 4. Rainier Avenue—South 4th Place to South 7°i Street arterial widening/RR over crossing replacement 5. Grady Way -Main Avenue to West City Limits arterial improvements 6. Lind Avenue Southwest- Southwest 16th to Southwest 43rd Street arterial widening 7. NE 2nd and NE 6th Street—Duvall Avenue NE to 156th Avenue SE street improvements 8. Duvall Avenue Northeast—Sunset Boulevard to North City Limits arterial widening 9. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Monster Road to SR-900 arterial widening 10. S.W. 27th Street/Strander Boulevard—SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest new arterial 11. Duvall Avenue NE-NE 8th Street to Sunset Boulevard arterial widening 12. Rainier Avenue—South 4th Place to South 2nd Street arterial improvements 13. Puget Drive Southeast-Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast arterial widening 14. Benson Road— South 26th Street to South 31st Street safety improvements/ arterial widening 15. Talbot Road — Southwest 43rd to South City Limits arterial widening 16. N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th Corridor Improvements—Sunset Boulevard to East City Limits arterial improvements 17. Mill Avenue South/Carr Road intersection improvements 18. Lake Washington Boulevard. —Park Avenue North to Coulon Park Entrance arterial improvements 19. Park Ave. N. / Sunset Boulevard—Garden Avenue N. to Duvall Avenue N.E. safety/mobility improvements 20. May Creek Bridge Replacement bridge replacement 21. South Renton Neighborhood Improvements street improvements 22. N.E. 8th and NE 10th Street—Union Avenue N.E. to Duvall Avenue N.E. street improvements 23. NE 4th Street/Hoquiam Avenue NE intersection improvements 24. Maple Valley Highway(SR 169)—1-405 to East City Limits safety/mobility improvements 25. 156th Avenue SE- SE 134th Street to SE 136th Street arterial widening OTHER JURISDICTION PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA: 26. West Valley Highway (SR 181)/South 156th Street intersection improvements 27. West Valley Highway (SR 181)—1-405 to Strander Blvd. arterial improvements 28. Nelsen Place— South 156th to South 158th street improvements KENT: Ned 29. South 196th/192nd Street Corridor(Phase III) -East Valley Highway to SR515 new arterial XI-26 ATTACHMENT E 30. 80th Avenue South—South 196th to South 188th arterial widening NEWCASTLE: 31. Coal Creek Parkway(Phase 2 and 3) SE 84th Way to SE 95th Street arterial widening "'ow' 32. Newcastle Way— 112`}'Avenue SE to 129th Avenue SE arterial widening 33. Newcastle Way/ 116`h Avenue SE intersection improvements 34. 112th Avenue SE—SE 64th Street to Newcastle Way arterial widening 35. 116`h Avenue SE—Newcastle Way to SE 88th Street arterial improvements 36. 112`x'Place SE—West City Limit to 116th Avenue SE arterial improvements KING COUNTY: 37. Duvall Avenue NE/Coal Creek Parkway—Renton City Limits to Newcastle City arterial widening Limits (SE 95th Way) 38. South 192"d Street - SR-515 to 140"'Avenue Southeast arterial widening 39. 116`x'Avenue Southeast- 176th Ave SE to South 192nd Street arterial improvement 40. 140th Way Avenue Southeast- SR-169 to Southeast 192❑d Street arterial widening 41. 156th Ave SE/SE 142nd Place intersection improvement 42. 154th Place SE/SE 142nd Place-Jones Road to 156"'Avenue SE arterial realignment/widening 43 Carr Road/ SE 176"'/ SE Petrovitsky—Lind Ave. S.W. to 116th Avenue S.E. arterial improvements 44. Can Road/Benson Road (SR-515) intersection improvements 45. 140`x' Avenue SE / SE Petrovitsky intersection New improvements 46. Trans-Valley Corridor— Southcenter Parkway to SR 515 transportation improvements 47. Benson Road/ South 31St Street intersection improvements WSDOT (Limited Access): 48. I-405 — I-5 to SR 167 add one lane in each direction 49. 1-405 — SR 167 to North City Limits add two lanes in each direction 50. SR 167—1-405 to SW 43rd Street add one lane in each direction 51. I-405/SR 167 Interchange • Southbound 1-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct connection ramp • Northbound SR 167 to Northbound I-405 construct direct connection ramp • Northbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct connection ramp 52. 1-405 between Lind Avenue SW and Talbot Road construct one-way frontage road in each direction with ramp connections to 1-405 at Lind and Talbot 53. I-405/SR 169 Interchange XI-27 ATTACHMENT E • SR 169/North 3`d Street construct split- diamond interchange • Southbound I-405 to Eastbound SR 169 construct direct connection ramp 54. I-405/Park Avenue N Interchange reconstruct to accommodate I-405 widening 55. I-405/N 30th Street Interchange reconstruct to accommodate I-405 widening 56. I-405/NE 44"' Street Interchange reconstruct to accommodate I-405 widening and future improvements WSDOT (City ROW) 57. SW 43`d Street-Lind Avenue SW to Talbot Road arterial widening 58. East Valley Road-SW 16th to SW 34"' Street arterial realignment 59. Lind Avenue SW-Grady Way to SW 16th Street arterial widening to accommodate frontage road and I-405 ramps 60. Talbot Road-South Renton Village Place to South 15th Place arterial widening to accommodate frontage road and I-405 ramps 61. Mill Avenue South-Houser Way to Bronson Way convert to one-way northbound 62. Renton and Cedar Avenue Overpasses of I-405 realignment/revisions to accommodate I-405 widening 63. Sunset Boulevard-west of I-405 realignment/revisions to accommodate I-405 widening 64. Houser Way- north of North 4th Street to North 8th Street realignment/revisions to accommodate I-405 widening 65. Lake Washington Boulevard-north of NE 44th Street realignment to accommodate I-405 widening 66. Benson Road/I-405 Overpass replacement to accommodate I-405 widening POST 2022 IMPROVEMENTS RENTON: South Lake Washington Improvements • Logan Avenue North-North 4th Street to Garden Avenue North arterial widening • North 10th Street-Logan Avenue North to Houser Way street widening • North 8th Street-Logan Avenue North to Garden Avenue North arterial widening • Park Avenue North-Logan Avenue North to 1,200 feet north of Logan new street Avenue North North 4th Street-Logan Avenue North to Sunset Boulevard revise street network WSDOT (Limited Access): '44101 XI-28 • ATTACHMENT E I-405 —I-5 to SR 167 add one lane in each direction I-405/SR 167 Interchange 'i•re • Northbound SR 167 to Southbound I-405 construct direct connection ramp East Valley Road at SW 34t Street construct new ramps connecting to SR 167 I-405 at North l0th Street construct direct connection ramps to and from the north I-405 at SR 169 • Northbound I-405 to Houser Way construct direct connection ramp • Southbound Houser Way to Southbound I-405 construct direct connection ramp • Northbound SR 169 to Northbound 1-405 construct direct connection ramp WSDOT (City ROW): Rainier Avenue—Grady Way to East Valley Road realign roadway to connect to East Valley Road at SW 16`h Street East Valley Road— SW 16t1'to SW 34`h Street arterial widening err° X1-29 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-7 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS XI-3() a ATTACHMENT E Nitirrd Arterial Plan Improvements .- � J`'� 31 i Legend ri t C ()I City Limit r 'Aim f� Renton N. ' ` Transportation ` ®;14'jk !Ir '' !� ` pi Planning Area �' •Stle By 2022 i� Plan AAA ilk '41.16) N,To Snlc ,11411h.1111 • `,, Wiwi , ��ii ��/ -� ta - swum If ��nllllll �• �_ MUMS P4114.11\► 1'' II !Ildlifirdi �o !. -up ,11„.,,,,a10� r I' -lir'.1 .1 a litesiolti, - - . 17:61"411-1=1"0111110 - .1iiii -I id, rn'siunime°2111149 i gli"Ditikkolailifaliffillmir ,..-.-, I =him= fillnerptA., k #14 sirs ---„. NiR110110 ...44.1m—Niriiik *Ai CD '%.,:tril am=18.19 6 iket witi-r \ \111;6.1.pivcrifilq vim / ma —Amu - ,00 '� f '+i to.IT. 4 I Renton is _ m kOiROP--'11 m L_ it 5 m `~ •�w ��m° elf 1 ..:aa�.'�■rig �aIIIh m q ass ►-�r1. �����. \1 {,y , �- ft% c27 0�;�,, .®ii 1111 IIS L` �v -` ` f Tag 11 41) ikt Iiite wsildriniratria - d_ ,., ®yyyrt `�: �� J , i-\) • 01 1 40. ME 0 C (Gs / n 16,Aer. -, - In ED 1 t LMe o, ,„,„'MAMA -"1 Ill ( 4 p4104I vailigYoungs Li I T1 i XI-31 ATTACHMENT E Included in Table 1.1 are arterial and freeway improvements that have been identified beyond 2022. These improvements will also be needed to support future land use and neighborhood and business goals and improve safety. Ongoing transportation planning work will include periodic testing of the 2002-2022 arterial and freeway improvements in Table 1.1 against the LOS standard. TRANSIT In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. The challenge will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. One of the most important of these alternatives is public transportation, or"transit." The Renton transit system, defined in this Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element, must provide attractive, convenient service for the local and regional travel needs of Renton businesses and residents. Objectives The Transit Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-B: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. T-C: Ensure that a regional high-capacity transit system serves Renton. T-D: Develop a transit system that conveniently connects the regional high-capacity transit system and local Renton residential areas, activity centers, and employment centers to the transit center. T-E: Develop a local transit system that provides attractive, convenient service for intra-Renton travel. Policies Policy T-17. The City should work with other jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area to plan Policy T-24. The City should support development -.44600 and provide frequent, coordinated and of transit service connecting Renton to a regional comprehensive bus service and transit facilities in rail network. all residential and employment areas. Policy T-25. Criteria should be developed to locate Policy T-18. Local and regional transit service and park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. facilities should be planned and improved in cooperation with the regional transit authority. Policy T-26. Park-and-rides within the City of Renton's Urban Center and its Center Village Policy T-19. The City should take an active role in designations should meet the following criteria: working with the regional transit agencies in • Use structured parking garages. planning and locating public transit facilities. • Be available for non-commuter use during evenings and weekends. Policy T-20. The multi-modal Transit Center in • Be located within the immediate vicinity of downtown Renton should be promoted as part of a the City's Transit Center, or any future major regional high capacity transit system. transit transfer facility(e.g., in Renton Highlands or South Lake Washington Policy T-21. Parking serving the downtown Transit Neighborhood). Center should be encouraged in parking structures. Policy T-27. Surface park-and-rides located Policy T-22. Non-structured park-and-ride outside of the City's Urban Center should meet the facilities should be located out of the Urban Center following criteria: and feed into the downtown Transit Center. • Be located in the vicinity of I-405, SR-167, SR-900 east of I-405, and/or SR-169. (These Policy T-23. Development of a regional network park-and-ride locations shall be chosen to using new technology to move people and goods provide convenient access for transit to those should be supported. X1-32 ATTACHMENT E corridors while minimizing commuter pass- • Not be expanded to accommodate leased park through traffic on Renton's street system.) and rides. • Be located in Commercial or Industrial • Not be leased within the commercial area Nome designations within easy walking distance of west of the Urban Center—Downtown employment, and/or multi-family uses. bounded by SW 7th Street, Shattuck Avenue, • Not be located within the Rainier Avenue Airport Way, and Hardie Avenue SW since corridor north of the I-405/SR-167 cash flow resulting from a lease may be a interchange. disincentive for redevelopment of surface • Avoid consuming large areas of urban land parking lots in this area. for primary use parking lots. Policy T-29. Regional commercial uses should be Policy T-28. Shared-use park-and-rides located linked by frequent and reliable mass transit to anywhere within the City should meet the following major employment and population centers. criteria: • Be leased from existing, under-utilized parking spaces required per development standards for a primary use. Also see related policies in: TDNUCTR Section; Land Use Element/Urban Center Section; and Community Design Element. The residential and centers policies of the land use plan also support transit through establishment of residential densities and a mix of residential and commercial uses in centers that can support public transportation. Specific treatment of the routes and stops for a transit system in downtown Renton are addressed in the Downtown policies of the land use plan. However, it is expected that such stops would serve commercial activity centers, which would complement the commercial and residential activities envisioned in the centers and residential policies of the land use plan. liNore Existing Transit Service Bus service in Renton is currently provided by the King County Transit Division(Metro), the agency responsible for transit service in King County, and Sound Transit, the agency responsible for regional transit service. Figure 2-1 identifies the existing bus routes operating in Renton. A variety of Metro service is provided in the city ranging from internal Renton routes such as Route 110, the Renton "Rush"circulator route, to regional service to downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue. Sound Transit's service includes express routes operating to SeaTac and Bellevue(Route 560), to Auburn and Bellevue (Route 564) and to Federal Way and Bellevue (Route 565). While not serving the city directly, Sound Transit's Sounder commuter rail service stops at the nearby Tukwila station. During weekday peak periods, Sounder trains currently serve several locations in Pierce County and South King County as well as downtown Seattle(King Street Station). The following provides an overview of the existing transit network serving Renton. Local Access The route structure and service headways for Renton routes provide basic overall service coverage. One of the local, community-oriented routes, Route 148, provides late evening and Sunday service. Route 105 provides evening service in the Highlands. Service connections in the Highlands area are reduced in the early evening periods; however, Route 240 provides evening and weekend service in the Highlands. In addition, Route 110, which was intended to operate as a local circulator, is available only during the peak periods and includes service connection to the Tukwila commuter rail station. X1-33 ATTACHMENT E Eastside Connections Several Metro and Sound Transit routes provide connections to downtown Bellevue and other Eastside communities. These connections include Bellevue (non-downtown) and Factoria. Direct service is currently provided between Highlands and Factoria via Metro Route 240. Route 240 provides 30-minute service during the day Monday through Saturday plus hourly service in the evenings. South King County Connections The baseline travel demand patterns indicate a substantial level of demand between Kent and various locations in Renton, particularly the Green River Valley. While several Metro and Sound Transit routes connect Kent with Renton, the service is focused on the downtown Renton. The Green River Valley area is accessed at the western edge of this district. East-West Connections Metro Route 140 currently connects Burien and Renton. Sound Transit Route 560 provides a connection between SeaTac and Renton. East-west connections to the Green River Valley area are particularly important given the current level of travel demand to this area from locations such as Tukwila and Burien. The following routes serve a variety of markets: • Routes 101 and 106, Downtown • Route 240, Bellevue • Route 140, Burien • Route 169,Kent • Route 148, Local Renton The King county Council adopted (September 5, 2006) and voters approved (November 7, 2006)Metro's Transit Now 10-Year Plan,which includes improvements to the following routes in Renton starting in February 2007: • Route 101 (Renton to Downtwon Seattle)- adding two new morning peak hour trips and one afternoon peak hour trip, for a total of 1,377 annual hours of additional service. • Route 140 (Renton- Sea-Tac Airport-Burien)-adding a total of 4,623 annual hours of additional service, which will allow the 140 to run every 15-minures all-day on weekdays. • Route 111 (Lake Kathleen via East Renton to Downtown Seattle)- increase earlier and later afternoon service with a total of 466 annual hours of service. The cities of Renton and kent are currently working on a partnership with King county Metro to co-fund the local matching funds to expand Route 153 service to provide midday service with a 30 or 60-minute frequency, Route 153 currently operates in peak periods during weekdays only and links the Renton transity Center and Kent commuter rail Station, as well as other major transit hubs, to several large employment sites and commercial/retail areas in both cities. Downtown Renton Transit Center The Downtown Renton Transit Center is the hub of transit service in Renton. The Transit Center is served by regional and local service provided by Sound Transit and the King County Transit Division(Metro), and acts as both a destination and a major transfer center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center is located between South Second and South Third Streets on Burnett Avenue South and on a new connection between Logan Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South. The facility has been carefully integrated with other planned developments in the downtown area. Custom Bus Service King County Transit, as of 2003, operated one custom bus route (952) serving Renton. This route operates one trip in the peak hour in the peak direction serving areas with significant employment density. Renton custom bus service originates at the Auburn Boeing plant,and serves Kent, Renton and terminates at the Everett Boeing plant. XI-34 ATTACHMENT E Park-and-Ride Facilities Renton has one dedicated transit park-and-ride lot facility within the city limits: the South Renton Park-and- Ride lot located at South Grady Way and Shattuck Avenue South. This park-and-ride lot has 370 spaces and is used at capacity. There are four park-and-ride lots in the Renton planning area which are leased by King County Transit for commuter parking. One of the lots is in downtown Renton, at the First Baptist Church at Southwest Sunset Boulevard and Hardie Avenue Southwest. It has 21 spaces and is used at 19% capacity. Another lot located in the Renton Highlands at Saint Matthew's Lutheran Church on Northeast 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue Northeast has 146 spaces and is at 29% capacity. A third lot is located at the East Renton Shopping Center at Southeast 128th Street and 164th Avenue Southeast, east of the Renton City limits in unincorporated King County. This lot has 21 spaces and is at 29% capacity. The fourth leased lot, also located in unincorporated King County, is at the Nativity Lutheran Church at 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 177th Street. This lot has 25 spaces and is at 60% capacity. The Boeing Company has a park-and-ride lot located in the vicinity of North 6th Street and Garden Avenue North. This lot has a capacity of approximately 100 stalls. The City has leased 200 parking spaces in the downtown parking garage to King County Metro Transit as a park and ride facility. Utilization by communters is consistently 140 or more vehicles during a weekday. 'Nur/ XI-35 • ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 2-1 EXISTING RENTON TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES 7,s.:,.':7't_ 'k✓= :t= 1.;;11Y 560564505 !'`i`;:,',.: : 6i,t-i.::, ,v,,i ti''�.3*`rik�,+,-"--g 340 • yrs x S^s 4`` a _g,m - y� , 41; 4.$ F 105,111,908_I ?� 411'W.,41.•1,`t 9u. 0,' a ,, �� - "'"4'.:F � � 240 107 c���n'1,,.. . °F I rev [ Perk Ave i Sfio G4 ... rereroa�utinnns6s sfis N 2007N8 i ' . ;1 8 los ® f :.0,Y MI i 106 107 : 1 I 1:9 MI raj ' __WO Niiiiiii° f. Renton Tranak Cenbr ►1�p.t 101,105;toQ107,110, 447 `-1111}---tip tom! _ 14..04.,148,149,153, 149 ::k.311.,:.11111-1°!....,_• '. ,rSS `46. Op - 149 e Lot:Canf?iu'6.ry \`:' -RiG'� - ---- •�..as•i• 101,140,148,153, M i 110,126, i' al 167,160,240247 LEGEND j' 140,154, - j Sounder , Bus Routes wth elf-day service \ Commuter Rail __1 --Bus Routes with peek only sennce mit i .d;F,P. ® SusRouteNumbers-, ' 1111 I Nt1My ''''1 Peek'Only ®Tr¢ns0 _._ 195 199 Porma ido ® t.,---£ Trwll Caller © Pork9wda Lot {,n �.Commuter Rail �y of Renton r ` 0 on as an � tl;it a RENTON - a. —"ie:._.,g, .• ..er�baabOVIftvant .-ea•�. a� ,.o .ms*, s.,.re.*,e..n, Transit Routes "▪:▪ :....::eenee.e.;,s.c =" February 7'2007 Kksg County II 1 XI-36 ATTACHMENT E Future Regional Accessibility %rw The long range transit and rideshare service concept for the King County Transit Division(Metro) service area is described in the Long Range Policy Framework for Public Transportation (adopted October, 1993). The Framework establishes policies that will guide future planning and development efforts, and it identifies possible policy implementation strategies. More specific near term transit improvements are outlined in the King County Transit Division's Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007. On May 31, 1996 the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority(Sound Transit) approved a 10-year plan, Sound Move, which is illustrated in Figure 2-2: The Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan. Voters approved a funding package to implement the plan on November 5, 1996. The approved Sound Transit Plan includes the following regional improvements: light rail transit, commuter rail transit, HOV expressway development, regional express bus service, and community connection improvements. Sound Transit improvements which will directly serve Renton include HOV access improvements, express bus service, and local connection improvements. In addition, commuter rail running between Seattle and Tacoma will stop at a station serving Renton and Tukwila, sited adjacent to the Boeing Longacres property. Efficient transit connections will be provided between the Downtown Renton Transit Center and the Commuter Rail Station. Sound Transit provides regional express bus service, with three routes serving Renton. As noted previously, express routes serve SeaTac, Bellevue, Auburn and Federal Way. To ensure quick access to the Downtown Renton Transit Center, the Sound Move plan identified direct access HOV ramps on I-405 in the vicinity of North 8th Street and needed arterial HOV improvements in Renton to improve transit speed, reliability and ridership of transit services. Before constructing any arterial HOV improvements, Sound Transit will evaluate alternative improvements to benefit transit speed, reliability, and access. The City of Renton is coordinating with Sound Transit to ensure that commensurate transit service and improvements to improve transit speed, reliability and ridership in Renton will be provided should I-405/HOV direct access ramps not be implemented. Transit Plan Transit improvements are needed to provide the facilities and services necessary to support and encourage increased transit use and provide an alternative to single occupancy vehicle travel. The transit facilities and services outlined in the Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element are needed to provide adequate access between the regional transit system and Renton residential and employment areas, and to provide an attractive transit alternative for travel within Renton. As described in the previous section, an element of the regional system is the Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail line. Access to Renton is provided by a station located on the Renton-Tukwila border between Longacres Way and Strander Boulevard. This station is currently served by local bus transit and will additionally be served by local, and possibly regional, bus transit, including fast connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. New XI-37 . r ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 2-2 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM SOUND MOVE THE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN , I ®) 7 o Everett ---.. MukiReo0 • / /ysSouth \ // 4, \/v Iverett \� ! � O Asb(ay . 'nyoPark LT 4 ; ♦ . . woodinvliie - -,tCrC lrn 1. .i,,iot_. ♦ Redmond ate:'>. II 4'- k ::�s? IIS . u Belle qe' Seg e. y .�1"",-. !a....V-- I_♦\I r Sammamish ' Seattle 11,,iiiMer- « �/,'''''s f', ;3F'r,.1 Newcastle Issaquah J:'a 0 1� ',Renton`" oil& i - - - - - ,. ' t (J1°-t Gig `4,31, .:i =i; Harbor ''i^ -`•=:-,;^`--;5"10'` •LII Auburn 0 :.ts';, federal wa�lll N `,,r7,.-„ Tacdm"a' !�I �� •: J Map Key 1, p=� f_—. —ST Express bus commuter user rail 7a�ma® O;r O Sumner \ il link light rail Puyallup '\ «.«Future Rght rail lakewood O.O •ID OI Bonney Access rzmp or South Hill �� O Imp ovemerrts O 0° Park 8 Ride '\ ® Transit Center DuPont 0 \ ® Flyer stop a® 0 Station san Oil T SOUNDTRANSIT RIDE THE WAVE . XI-38 } ATTACHMENT E Regional transit services are provided by the previously described Sound Transit express bus service, as well as by select King County Transit Division (Metro) express bus routes. The local transit system links neighborhoods and commercial centers with one another as well as to the regional transit system through connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. Local service is provided through a combination of services, including buses, shuttles, and Dial-a-Ride (DART) service. In addition, interceptor park-and-ride lots outside of downtown Renton should be developed close to trip origin locations, with transit service feeding the Transit Center and regional services. Renton has been and will continue to work with these transit agencies to assure that transit adequately serves Renton's developing residential areas. An illustration of Renton's 20-year transit plan is provided in Figure 2-3. This figure depicts planned regional and local improvements, and identifies at a conceptual level potential service types and transit routes. Specific transit service improvements and facilities identified for the next 6 years, and over the next 20 years to support Renton's conceptual transit plan, are described in the City of Renton Transit Needs Assessment as well as in the King County Transit Division's Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007 and by the regional Sound Move program. The Transit Plan comprises a transit system that will serve Renton from 2002 to 2022, as a regional destination and as a city with commercial and neighborhood centers. It should also be noted that the exclusive freeway/arterial HOV facilities included in the HOV Chapter are needed to support and encourage increased transit use by improving transit travel times (by enabling buses to bypass or avoid the traffic congestion that is forecasted for the Renton and regional road systems). Level of Service The City of Renton Level of Service (LOS) policy emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. This LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS standard will be used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures will be based on travel time contours and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. Noie The 2022 LOS standard has been established to greatly increase the competitiveness of transit compared to SOV travel. Achieving this goal has guided the planning and programming of the elements of the Transit Plan. Information on development of the transit index of the Level of Service Standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement and updating of the transit index. XI-40 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 2-3 RENTON TRANSIT PLAN ''rlr 4. r 7, _ / 7 , , , , NI I i g— Site / . iii, 111 �..�:�/ 4`%KFNN DALF7�I ir �� uxroscli Pile C"ill.`\, TMJ,' —\-_' 0 li k` - L kc KLaA ngtnn 1 k R ` �„ K.. ► 4', Ii1H11�� I�nllllll ;4 im HIGHLANDS J`L_e--, _. . .‘,-.7., ) fimmi . .%ft7-1 ig N l 1:19: 6.union a y ittEs. 1 •-44,....°. ,1��. ..11 i r f lmfi i1A ^I11t4i1i 1►W1 tr .11ui rt •�kViCp of i CBD 4g9E grItY i teElf- 1,110Z71:G4 11P-- ',-'. il III' . 1 giIe'�/ :>r<■.1..,, Renton .. 1� 44"1106.Cr l•V1/s 11 IE hitilto,yaillyri��a�'�� iii � —�1 r'a_ • 1 ■ !..11,1r- 4. Ittp 9 I ri 11110641, 4:t. .....7--it all _ TilliirV I"It111L-41.11FiVieJ_ REQ' ON ati ill'i ,. ter. I A ■ FAIRW00D a�''' 'MIR , i .4/�I�1R� .n .sl!C ' 4 Renton 2002-2022 Transit Plan-Conceptual 1. , Legend p Cityl o 22- Renninn Planning Area - TfanSPOftatl0 / / r L t Regional Commuter Rail �� r 1 Plan High Opacity Transit&Other KenRegional Transit Routes ■ S Local Transit RoutesIMIGIMMINIERSCIMEN C• D' O Transit Hub Park&Ride H NNW XI-41 y � ATTACHMENT E HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. A major challenge of the Renton Transportation Element will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. The HOV Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on increasing the person-carrying capacity of the system rather than the vehicular capacity. Objectives The HOV Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-F: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. T-G: Develop HOV facilities on freeways and arterials to support and encourage ridesharing by enabling HOVs to bypass or avoid severe traffic congestion on Renton and regional street and highway networks. T-H: Provide facilities to support attainment of Commute Trip Reduction and other Growth Management goals within the City. Policies Policy T-30. The City should support completion Policy T-34. The City should establish or should of a comprehensive system of HOV improvements encourage the establishment of arterial HOV and programs on state highways and regional system warrants, standards and criteria for usage arterials that give high-occupancy vehicles a travel (volume,capacity, LOS); physical and geometric time advantage over single-occupancy vehicles. characteristics; appropriate locations; time-of-day of operation; HOV facility type. Policy T-31. The City should continue to promote measures to increase the use of high occupancy Policy T-35. The City should support a regional vehicles among employers located within the City. vehicle occupancy monitoring and HOV system evaluation program that includes elements such as Policy T-32. A continuous network of arterial a "demonstration managed lanes"project, HOV facilities (lanes, bypass, etc.) should be electronic tolling or"HOT LANES" concept. provided on the congested travel corridors in Renton. (Also see related policies in the TDM/CTR Section and see King County Countywide Planning Policy T-33. Arterial HOV facilities should be Policies.) provided on the local arterial routes in Renton that provide access to/from the regional highway system. Existing HOV Facilities Freeway HOV facilities are provided on Interstate 405 and SR-167. These include inside (median) HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, on I-405 from the I-5 interchange and continuing to the Renton north city limit and beyond. Two or more persons in a vehicle are allowed to travel in these lanes. These lanes are in effect 24 hours per day, except when non-HOV use is allowed between 7 pm and 5 am. Inside HOV lanes,both northbound and southbound, exist on SR-167 between the south Renton city limits and SR-405. This HOV facility is also designated for 2+occupant vehicles. An HOV queue jump lane is provided at the following interchange ramps in Renton: the northbound SR-167 to northbound I-405 ramp; the I-405/SR-169 (Maple Valley)northbound and southbound on-ramps; the I- 405/N.E. Park Drive northbound and southbound on-ramps; the I-405/N.E. 30th northbound on-ramp; and, the I-405/N.E. 44`h southbound on-ramp. Each of the queue jump lanes has a 2+designation. Nod XI-42 ATTACHMENT E HOV Plan HOV facilities on SR-167 and I-405 provide the freeway HOV system through Renton.. Additional regional HOV facilities (i.e., on I-5)must be implemented by the State Depaitment of Transportation in order to �rrr provide regional HOV service to the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors. To-date HOV lanes have been completed on I-5 between the Seattle CBD and Puyallup and on SR 167 between 15th Street NW in Auburn and 1-405 in Renton. The City has identified arterial HOV corridors based on the policies listed previously. These corridors include many of the principal arterials through central Renton and state routes throughout the city. The Renton HOV Plan includes the provision(over the next 20 years (2002 to 2022)of the HOV facilities shown in Figure 3-1. The Plan includes HOV facilities, in the form of HOV lanes or intersection queue jumps, in the Renton corridors listed below: • Rainier Avenue/Airport Way • SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway) • Park Drive North/N.E. Sunset Boulevard • SR-515 or Benson Road • S.W. 27th Street Nome XI-43 -3 n x lTj 2 r-3 S r/ m r/ t a t — ( Figure 3-1 C k.„„ va #1,:, ®.„, \ .� we tle Map Index of HOV Improvements -- 1 �► �l -C-1 d,CI” Add HOV Lanes Improvement Limits ' -,t,�■ GM 1 SR 167-SB HOV Lane Extension North to 1.405 �111�I' . ` _ » Add HOV Ramps Ipk i� r-1 t ...6' ,."—II II 1�� c"in N "'h3��►'� 2 I405/SR167 half interchange o�v,sok n��lll� 1 Alla', NB SR-167 to NB I405 •,�i1111i �utr�n '# .-. '°l_— 11 SB 1405 to SBSR167 . ■ �i F',.. sv",',.% 1►� ( 3. S -167 HOV by-pass lanes IUt 1 1 � .'''_'_'';�'''''N.n'_ ' (Ring. _ ■PJ �;\ SW 41st SB on-rampelliM � , - i ll ' . SW 43rd NB on-ramp /v 11104:216 711 610 Ill?sty Ill-J Y - E= �. ■��ti� New NOV Interchange fL1� _ 4. I405/Nordt Sch full interchange j � \``i- �r,isii l a 1�11lg���i 5.SR 167/SW 27th St half interchange GC 111 } 6. 1405/NE 44th Sr hal interchange H `...AWE` A11111-xamIiI �' " ji �% ge O h-I �g� \\■1 11 j and ll ^^ 1'�'1�•�l. ..... ;ijj�tj7� .. III1111 • Arterial NOV Lanes or Intersection Queue Jump Z 1 _�'+•' V",• ■ 7.SR 169 Sunset Blvd to 140th Way SE -°7��' •j��pr=.I 11 Renton R city ,`2�i � g!' 8. Park Dr/Sunset Blvd Garden Ave to East a hmir C� e`10V)■.-.a.9Q► ''� r 1��•�` n r�. 1�i 1 9. Rainier Ave/Airport Way SR 900 to Logan Ave N 4.a.'i■1'w i w _ ■ 10.SW 27th St SR 167 to Oakesdale Ave SW 0 -L, h\ it Vemia6�Ilin r `' .41111J! 11 SR 515 1405 to South city limitel . IYga ' - •'' • 1 W �"' �' iia Ili �L4I� Transit Corridor I •'I! f� I'll )1 �F 12 Rainier and/or Hardie Ave GradyWay to Park Ave ��e ���'��'���••11A�•y t. 1 d `�J s uLongaenM 6th ion/S 3rd/Bumetr/ y 4!I !!1777 1 "I'� 1 ed a' e Renton HOV Plan(2002-2022) .g�� Legend 9111 a, Se.if / — ME si ! City Calk `` Freeway NOV Lanes umamt h// 3� Renton Arterial Transportation w ■� IF i Planning Area NOVTrcacmena I ; 1� t� Plan s �� :. :M71 - -y ‘ HOV-Only e � v — {. V, ;' :-$; Interchange .✓� ..1 L I I • ..•'.:'t r-f..7114." .,,f .. ATTACHMENT E In addition to arterial HOV improvements,construction of direct access HOV interchange ramps to provide connections to the I-405 HOV lane system is planned at N.E. 44`h Street, N. 8th Street, and on the SR-167 system at S.W. 27th Street. These ramps will provide vital HOV access and enable efficient transit movements *tird in the City to support regional and local transit service consistent with the objectives and policies described in the Transit Chapter of this Transportation Element. The HOV Plan also includes a transit corridor in Central Renton: S. 3`d/Burnett/Logan/N. 6"'comprise the northern portion of the corridor and in the southern portion South Grady Way, Rainier Avenue, Lind Avenue, and Hardie Avenue are under consideration to complete the corridor. (Other potential north-south streets south of S. 4`h Street, i.e. Shattuck Avenue S., Burnett Avenue, Williams Avenue and Wells Avenue are not under consideration as a result of the City's decision, in response to significant public input, to locate the southern portion of the transit corridor outside of the South Renton residential area.) A north-south transit corridor is an important element of a transit plan that supports Renton's policies to: 1) encourage local and regional transit agencies to provide a high level of transit service to the Downtown Renton Transit Center by improving transit travel time, accessibility and reliability; and, 2)provide an attractive and effective alternative mode of transportation to the single occupant vehicle that contributes to a reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution in Renton's Urban Center. Also, the Strander Boulevard improvement identified in the Arterial Plan, Table 1.1, will serve transit vehicles as well as SOV and HOV traffic and is planned for implementation coordinated with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. Several of the above HOV/transit improvements have been identified for funding under the regional Sound Transit plan approved by voters. Under this regional high capacity transit plan, Renton is designated to be served by the regional express bus system. Sound Transit has evaluated if there are capital facilities that could be constructed in Renton which would improve reliability and travel time for transit and HOV movement sufficient to warrant Sound Transit's investment. Sound Transit has identified the Central Renton north-south transit corridor improvements and HOV direct access interchange improvements at North 8`h Street as beneficial capital investments. The improvements in the Renton HOV Plan, along with improvements in the Arterial Plan and Transit Plan, provide a multi-modal transportation plan that meets the 2022 level of service standard for the projected travel demand from land use development envisioned by 2022. HOV improvements in the I-405 corridor that have been identified beyond 2022 are listed below. These improvements would help to support future land use development. If these improvements were implemented by 2022 they could help maintain Renton's 2022 level of service standard. 1-5/1-405 Interchange • Northbound I-5 to Northbound I-405 construct direct connection ramp • Southbound I-405 to Southbound I-5 construct direct connection ramp • Southbound I-5 to Northbound 1-405 construct direct connection ramp I-405/SR 167 Interchange • Northbound SR 167 to Southbound 1-405 construct direct connection ramp • Northbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct connection ramp I-405 at Tukwila Commuter Rail Station construct half interchange I-405 at Rainier Avenue construct half interchange Ongoing transportation planning work will include further analysis of the freeway interchange and arterial corridor HOV improvements identified in the HOV plan to verify physical, operational and financial needs and scheduling of implementation. This further study may find that the planned HOV improvements may not be feasible on one or more of the selected corridors. Therefore, ongoing work will also include the examination of additional arterial corridors for HOV treatment on an as-needed basis (without over-developing or over- X1-16 ATTACHMENT E using this type of transportation facility). Over-development of HOV facilities can lead to under-utilization and HOV traffic dispersion, rather than consolidation. Nis' Level of Service As discussed in the Arterial Chapter, the City of Renton LOS policy emphasizes the movement of people,not just vehicles. This LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non- motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS standard will be used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures of this LOS standard will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. HOV improvements along with transit improvements should show great effectiveness in improving 2022 travel times and distance. Achieving this goal will guide the planning and programming of the elements of the HOV Plan. Further information on how the HOV index of the Level of Service Standard was established is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Support Document. likare XI-47 ATTACHMENT E NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION The non-motorized component of the City's Transportation Plan is designed to enhance the quality of urban life in Renton, to improve walking and bicycling safety, and to support the pedestrian and bicycle transportation modes as alternatives to the use of automobiles. The plan recognizes that non-motorized facilities along roadways and trails may serve multiple functions, including commuting and recreation. The on-street elements are specified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Program and as described later in this section. Off-street elements of the non-motorized transportation system are specified by the City of Renton Long Range Parks, Recreation Open Space and Trails Master Plan described in the Parks Element. 1. Renton's existing transportation system is oriented towards accommodating cars, trucks, and buses rather than pedestrians or bicycles. The intent of the objectives and policies that follow is to provide guidelines for reevaluating the existing system and providing a better environment for walking and bicycling. Overall,pedestrian facilities throughout the City are intended to be upgraded. 2. More facilities are also needed for bicycle storage and parking in shopping areas, employment centers and in public places. 3. A better pedestrian network can be encouraged by creating an interconnected street system, developed to street standards, which include adequate walkways and street crossings. Traffic sanctuary islands and midblock crossings across busy arterials are also useful methods of improving the pedestrian environment. Objectives The Non-Motorized Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-I: Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel. T-J: Develop and maintain comprehensive trails system which provides non-motorized access throughout the City, maximizes public access to open space areas, and provides increased recreational opportunities for the public. T-K: Integrate Renton's non-motorized transportation needs into a comprehensive transportation system serving both local and regional users. T-L: Enhance and improve the non-motorized circulation system to, from, and within the City. T-M: Develop and designate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle commuter routes along existing minor arterial and collector arterial corridors. Policies Policy T-36. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic minimized on sidewalks,paths and other should be accommodated within all areas of the pedestrian areas. City. Policy T-39. Convenient and safe pedestrian and Policy T-37. Pedestrian and bicycle movement bicycle access should be provided to and at the across arterial intersections should be enhanced. downtown Transit Center and all transit stops. Policy T-38. Obstructions and conflicts that Policy T-40. Bicycle storage facilities and restrict pedestrian movement should be parking should be encouraged within *41004 XI-48 ATTACHMENT E development projects, in commercial areas and in Policy T-42.3. Foot/bicycle separation should be parks. provided wherever possible; however, where conflict occurs, foot traffic should be given 'vr.+ Policy T-41. Streets and pedestrian paths in preference. residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an interconnecting network and should connect to Policy T-42.4. Adequate separation between other streets. non-motorized and motorized traffic should be provided to ensure safety. Policy T-42. New pedestrian facilities should be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Policy T-42.5. The adopted Long Range Parks, Act, and existing facilities should be upgraded to Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan should improve accessibility. be coordinated with and be an integral component of the City's on-going transportation planning Policy T-42.1. Non-motorized transportation activities. should be developed in tandem with motorized transportation systems, recognizing issues such as Policy T-42.6. Appropriate mitigation measures safety, user diversity, and experiential diversity. should be taken to address impacts on the City's transportation infrastructure. Contributions to the Policy T-42.2. Recognize the diversity of City's non-motorized circulation system will help transportation modes and trip purposes of the alleviate such impacts. following four groups: pedestrians, bicyclists, joggers and runners. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The City's existing non-motorized transportation system is comprised primarily of roadside sidewalks. Pedestrians have the exclusive use of sidewalks within business districts and have shared use with cyclists +'' in other areas of the city. Although the City Code requires that sidewalks be provided on all streets, many of the public streets were constructed before the existing code was enacted, and as a result, numerous roadways are currently without sidewalks. Streets needing sidewalks include both local and arterial roadways. The City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study addresses the sidewalks and walkways within the City. This report identifies a priority roster to construct "missing" sidewalk/walkway sections throughout the City. The priority evaluation system is based on four sidewalk users: 1) school children, 2) elderly persons, 3) transit riders, and 4) all other users. Except within business districts, cyclists may use existing sidewalks, provided that they yield the right-of- way to pedestrians. As of 2006, Renton has a combined bicycle/pedestrian facility along Garden Avenue North(North 6th Street to North 8th Street) and North 8th Street(Garden Avenue North to Houser Way), and striped bicycle lanes on Southwest 16th Street(Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Longacres Drive), on Oakesdale Avenue Southwest(SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street) on Duvall Avenue NE (NE 4th Street to NE 8`h Street), and on NE 4th Street(east of Duvall Avenue NE). Renton is located at the crossroads of a regional system of existing and proposed trails. Existing trails within the City include the Cedar River Trail System and a portion of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Regional Systems with proposed access to the City include the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail. Figure 4-1 shows the existing(2006)non-motorized facilities within Renton and the nearby regional routes. XI-49 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 4-1 EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES Ni Existing Non-Motorized Facilities i© , Legend i f 1' ,_ / + + City Limit —' , Transportation - :41111 �y T• \ fi Renton , Plan r°,,iiIIIII frn,IiuIg,prse Planning Area -' IN_Mi /I• mo= s .� asNot p lk t l _ tea. 48111111tei. An= II ��� -kik -4. ita null .. ' I •E,111► _i,-:.--'' - I ake Washington __-_ , ilt ■��\IORikanfi 1 .`r� 111111 Nliqmit fi)10-:::=NEE. -'-''.--- ik Attimillirlhi . 1. wiquarariati , mem. k oppirita liWe PitimS1011111 -1 -,. , Nek11116 Inutainiv .- 0 .1 .1N,..tilg -is* ,:. -i- --t 1111 s.,, *111,411E4 14141111 IIIIN ./ Nit 1111 mic' 0 ' ib,..__,_Airti.t, Ill. • - Am 966 �� ".��� fin: 4/� 11 RurniumnP. enton 1 'A i N4 - ' i0IbitiP &I miil liai 20 169 ` — 1,t 4: _ in 144:k. %...` lorlsinincnolika icoms...,, 1 I �:�\/ice 1�/,+ ---^ III1li 1 ��� t+11 Ills .�� II © 1 e III'', �,■ ' //.1 =...- Bicycle Facilites ■� � ts� �:�'n rA F 1 ■ r` 1.7M ♦ aa_!., fi 1. Ta lorA e/Hardie Ave �' Y s , 2,1 ` maN i 'Irr , OakesdaleLa <t : F� 1 7. NE 4th Street actIMW / RD Mixed Use Facilities Alli�.� — — i, 10. Cedar River/Urban #.}. �1 r Manny "SAC Industr a(Zone . I mil � 11. Green l2. Green River Trail 13. Interurban Trail 14. Garden Ae/N 8th Sr ., V., _ siL 92nd St I5. Springbrook Trail ,y—.11• ®; IIS 1 al , Et_ Pedestrian Facilities _1 M11111 `�) 20. Cedar River Trail Y XI-50 ATTACHMENT E Design criteria for walkways, trails, and bikeways are contained in a variety of documents, including the City of Renton Municipal Code and Trails Master Plan, King County Road Standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Niad and Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (the MUTCD). Neighborhood and Regional Access The principal non-motorized facility type linking neighborhoods within Renton and providing regional access are sidewalks or walkways. These facilities provide safe non-motorized mobility for both pedestrians and cyclists outside of business districts. Within business districts, sidewalks provide safe mobility for pedestrians. Currently, the sidewalks that exist along most of the arterials within the City provide the primary regional link as well. This "regional" access includes non-contiguous areas within Renton as well as areas outside of the City planning area. Some notable walkway deficiencies exist along sections of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169), Puget Drive, and Talbot Road South. These roadways do not currently provide safe non- motorized mobility through Renton. Installation of walkways/sidewalks has been either programmed into future transportation improvement projects, or identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study. Non-motorized neighborhood connections are made via sidewalks along arterial and collector roadways. Sidewalk connections between most neighborhoods within the City limits currently exist. In some locations, however, sidewalks are not continuous along a roadway. In potential annexation areas that are or were defined as "rural" by King County, sidewalks have generally not been constructed along either arterial or local roadways, because sidewalks are not required by rural area design standards. Most existing county roadways have either paved or gravel shoulders for use by cyclists and pedestrians. Consequently, many of the potential annexation areas do not provide protected non-motorized inter-neighborhood connection. Another important consideration is the bicycle route connection to regional cycling corridors. The regional corridors, to which the Renton bicycle routes should connect, include the Interurban, Christensen/Green River, Lake Washington Loop, Sammamish, and Soos Creek Trails. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan The City, per the Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study, will construct sidewalks/walkways at "missing locations." In some areas, sidewalks will be constructed along each side of the street. Because of physical constraints such as side slopes and roadway grades, or minimal expected pedestrian usage, some locations will have pedestrian/cyclist facilities constructed on only one side of the street. Sidewalk facilities will be constructed as part of a prioritized installation program. Additional non-motorized facilities will be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvement projects and as part of the Transit Improvement Program. Current annexation area roadways without sidewalks will be added to the Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study after annexation into the City. Sidewalk improvements on roadways could be improved through local improvement district(LID) and capital improvement projects (CIP). Table 4.2 lists routes that have been identified as important bicycle transportation elements. Along roadways designated as bicycle routes,roadway or shoulder widening may accommodate cyclists'needs. These improvements could be added when roadway improvement projects are constructed or implemented as individual improvement projects. XI-52 ATTACHMENT E Further review by the City of Renton, in cooperation with citizen groups, will be necessary to detei,uine which of the projects listed in Table 4.1 are selected for development. '`'"'"` King County is pursuing development of bicycle facilities outside of the Renton city limits. Four routes leading into Renton have been identified in the King County Non-motorized Plan: ct, • 116 Avenue Southeast(Edmonds Avenue Southeast) (Southeast Petrovitsky Road to South 157—Street) n• 140 Place/Avenue Soptheast(Southeast 192d Street to Southeast Renton-Maple Valledy Road) • State Route 900 (138—Avenue Southeast(Duvall Avenue Northeast) to Southeast 82-Street) • Coal Creek Parkway Southeast (Newcastle City Limits to Renton City Limits) The routes identified by the City of Renton and listed in Table 4.1 will be planned to connect with these proposed King County facilities. The City of Renton Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan identified in the Parks Element provides an in-depth description of proposed walking, bicycle, and mixed-use trails. By nature, these types of trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, and are not necessarily supportive of transportation goals. The creation of these trails would certainly supplement the City's non-motorized transportation system, and their development by the Parks Department should be encouraged. Routes that are found to be important transportation elements could be constructed through the transportation program. Now XI-53 ATTACHMENT E TABLE 4.1 PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTES Facility Name Route Sunset Bypass Route Northeast 17th Street(Duvall Avenue Northeast to Union Avenue Northeast) Union Avenue Northeast(Northeast 17th Street to Northeast 12th Street) Northeast 12th Street or NE 10th Street(Union Avenue Northeast to Edmonds Avenue Northeast) Edmonds Avenue Northeast(Northeast 12th 110th Street to Northeast Park Drive) Northeast Park Drive(Edmonds Avenue Northeast to Lake Washington Boulevard North) Monroe Avenue Northeast Monroe Avenue Northeast(Northeast 4th Street to Northeast 12th Street) Duvall Avenue Northeast Duvall Avenue Northeast(Northeast 10th Street to Northeast 24th Street) Lake Washington Boulevard Lake Washington Boulevard(Northeast 44th Street to Coulon Park) (Partially (Lk Washington Loop Route) completed) Garden Houser Way North(Lake Washington Boulevard to North 8th Street) (Lk Washington Loop Route) Garden Avenue North(North 6th Street to Bronson Way) Central Renton Connection Garden Avenue/North 6th Street to Airport Perimeter Road(Various routes (Lk Washington Loop Route) under consideration). Burnett Burnett Avenue South(Cedar River Trail to Southwest 7th Street) Airport Airport Perimeter Road corridor(Logan Avenue North to Rainier Avenue) (Lk Washington Loop Route) Rainier Avenue North(Airport Perimeter Road to Northwest 3rd Street) Hardie/Rainier Bypass Northwest 3`d(Rainier Avenue North to Hardie Avenue Northwest) Hardie Avenue(Northwest 3`d Street to Southwest 7th Street) Southwest 7th Southwest 7th Street(Burnett to Oakesdale) Southwest 16th Lind Avenue Southwest(Southwest 7th Street to Southwest 16th Street) Southwest 16th Street(Lind Avenue Southwest to Raymond Avenue Southwest) Southeast Area Main Avenue(Bronson Way to Benson Road South) Benson Road South(Main Avenue South to Southeast 168th Street) Puget Drive Southeast(Benson Road South to Edmonds Avenue Southeast) Edmonds Avenue Southeast(Puget Drive Southeast to South 157th Street) Strander Boulevard/Southwest Springbrook Wetlands Trail to Interurban Trail 27th Street Sunset Boulevard(West) Hardie Avenue Southwest to West City Limits Talbot Road South 7th Street to South City Limits Northeast 3`1/Northeast 415 Street Sunset Boulevard North to East City Limits XI-54 ATTACHMENT E TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/ COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (TDM/CTR) As stated in the Arterial, Transit, and HOV Chapters, a major challenge of the Renton Transportation Plan will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on encouraging and facilitating reductions in trip- making, dispersion of peak period travel demand throughout the day, increased transit usage, and increased ride sharing. In enacting the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law of 1991, and the 1997 amendments, the State Legislature found that decreasing the demand for vehicle trips is significantly less costly and at least as effective in reducing traffic congestion and its impacts as constructing new transportation facilities, such as roads and bridges, to accommodate increased traffic volumes. The legislature further found that reducing the number of commute trips to work made via single occupant cars and light trucks is an effective way of reducing automobile-related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use. The goals, objectives, and policies of the Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter also are based on these findings. Objectives The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-N: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. T-O: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand. �rr+r Policies This Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains City policies concerning Transportation Demand Management and Commute Trip Reduction (including support for ride sharing and management of parking supply). Policy T-43. The disruptive impacts of traffic Policy T-47. The construction of parking related to centers and employment areas should be structures in downtown Renton should be reduced. (In this context, disruptive impacts are encouraged. primarily traffic. They could be mitigated through techniques such as transportation management Policy T-48. Parking ratios should be reduced as programs implemented through cooperative transit services are increased and an adequate level agreements at the work place, flexible work hours, of public transit can be demonstrated. and subarea planning.) Policy T-49. Transportation demand management Policy T-44. Appropriate parking ratios should be measures should be implemented at residential and developed that take into account existing parking retail developments, as well as at the workplace. supply, land use intensity, and transit and ride- sharing goals. Policy T-50. Employers affected by Commute Trip Reduction laws should be encouraged to Policy T-45. Alternatives to on-street or on-site implement measures that support reductions in parking should be explored. SOV travel and vehicle miles traveled. Policy T-46. Site selection criteria should be developed for location of park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. XI-55 ATTACHMENT E Policy T-51. Site design and layout for all types Strategy T-51.1 Downtown (Central Business of development should incorporate transportation District)parking restrictions and/or removal demand management measures such as convenient resulting from TDM/CTR policies shall apply to priority parking places for HOVs, and convenient, commuter/employee parking, not to business direct pedestrian access from residential, patron/customer parking. commercial, and other facilities to transit stops/stations. Also see related policies in the HOV section. Existing Parking Supply and Demand An inventory of the existing parking supply in the Downtown Core was conducted in 2001. The inventory gathered data for both on-street and off-street spaces. Figure 5.1 summarizes the results of the inventory. The Downtown Core has 2,055 off-street spaces. There are also 387 public off-street parking spaces within the Downtown Core. The remaining off-street parking spaces are private or signed for use by patrons of a specific business. Additional information on this parking inventory is provided in the Parking in Renton's Downtotivn Core report. Ongoing transportation planning work will include expanding the parking study area,possibly citywide, if needed for the refinement of parking policies and guidelines. X1-56 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 5-1 DOWNTOWN CORE EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY 2001 ^ N ILi• • / •♦ Air.ort Way / `• 1 19 • • 4p4Q N 2nd +: 3'• •♦ 127 +8� • \ I 43 13 of s`e, obin Ave S 111" %t•\ t• \‘ ,P • +11 • 151 `\\ I N . 1 I32C 124 `N t _ +30 > 36 l j 47 65. +14 a 154 I +20 79 w _ 66 56 `fir P1rlinpc«ape I � +12 Ftwo ai r '' 78 . ,--^f S 2nd St II • , 201 100 +10 +8 8-4,e 1081' ;If ii: p , f36 < +20118 � 111 /..4 4th St LU `./ 1 ^ r.tm1111 . 1I Downtown Core Existing --- Parking Summary 2001 2055 OtfStreetPating ..- +387 On-Street Parkin � . «.r. ... «.�..� ..� - .. r.... 2442 Total Parking Spaces ."=4 :.+':". . Y...r Mir N r..t.r..4-+... X1-57 Arimew ATTACHMENT E Parking Policy Review As stated in the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction(CTR) law of 1991, there exists a close relationship between commuter behavior and the supply and cost of parking. As required by the CTR law, the City has completed a review of local parking policies and ordinances as they relate to employers and major worksites and revisions necessary to comply with commute trip reduction goals and guidelines. Maximum parking ratios have been established, and the existing minimums modified in the City's Development Regulations, to create a range of appropriate allowable parking ratios. Additional revisions have been made to support HOV, transit,and non-motorized usage and access. Employers' Mode Split The Washington State Commute Trip Reduction(CTR) Law requires employers deemed to be affected by the CTR Law to have transportation programs for their employees designed to meet goals for reduction of single occupancy vehicle commuter trips and/or reduction of vehicle miles traveled. CTR-affected employers shall have two (2) years to meet the first CTR goal of fifteen percent(15%); four(4)years to meet the second goal of twenty percent (20%); six (6)years to meet the third goal of twenty-five percent(25%); and twelve (12) years to meet the fourth goal of thirty-five percent(35%) from the time they are deemed a CTR-affected worksite and begin their program. Employers' mode split will be addressed with data being gathered and used for the implementation of the CTR law. In order to implement the state Commute Trip Reduction law,King County was divided into approximately a dozen CTR zones with similar employment density, population density, level of transit service, parking availability, and access to High Occupancy Vehicle facilities. The Puget Sound Regional Council produced base year values for 1992 for each zone using its regional transportation model. These values reflect the average rate of single occupant vehicle (SOV)trips for all employers in the zones. Most of the City of Renton is located in the South King County zone. A small piece of the City, the northernmost tip,north of May Creek, is located in the East King County zone. The base year value for single occupant vehicle trips for both the South and the East King County zone is 85%. While this figure is not an exact mode split figure, it is representative of the degree to which employees of all employers in Renton are accessing their worksites by single occupant vehicle or using other modes. The assumption is made that the SOV rate is 85%, and the rate of trips made by other modes is 15%. TDM/CTR Programs The City has adopted a CTR Ordinance and a CTR Plan (February 1993). The ordinance outlines the manner in which and the schedule with which employers located within the City of Renton are required to design and implement commute trip reduction programs at their worksites. As of Februray 2007, there are 22 active CTR sites in Renton(Figure 5-2). The CTR Plan is a summary document that describes the City's implementation approach. As stated in the Plan,the City has contracted with Metro to perform certain activities,including employer notification, employer assistance, and program review. The Plan summarizes the CTR goals and establishes the CTR zones mentioned above. It explains the circumstances and procedures for employer appeals of CTR program administrative decisions. The Plan also states the City's commitment to implementing a CTR program for its own employees, to complete the parking policy review mentioned above, and to report on an annual basis to the state regarding progress towards meeting CTR goals. In the past, the City,with the support of Metro,has developed Transportation Management Programs (TMPs) for new residential, commercial, and office developments. These TMPs have usually been put in place through SEPA agreements. At some point in the future, the City may consider adopting a developer- Need XI-58 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 5-2 RENTON ACTIVE CTR SITES '44411.- LEGEND .s<e ,,: moss Bus Routes with ad-day servke ;•'') ',-:Peel i — Bus Routes with peek only service h•t'; Acthie CTR Site and pemantIn amon(with Map ID) -r• 11 II 11 employes 1ranelt� .i 'ye' E r,w N 141. 6101. ,lox :;i1 , 4':�s s Stops within a Quarter Mile of Renton 'jtSC,-, • ' Active CTR Sites "Ii-7_742-44 Quarter Mile Butter Around AS =�_y�i,;a=.: Renton Highlands' Renton Bus Stops -_Z. e.":�'_.. Park 8 Ride • iTransit Center ®Permanent b; .1; 105,111.909 J PadcBRlde lot ......,„.„-T4 _ ---1-- Sounder Commuter Rail •t y : City of Ramon 'N':-.;�. Y'"•!.?'t'`-r2i) r:T. II Ili Renton Urban Growth Canter o a .:41.4:/.. ' iiiiIii,,rin:2frop.c7047/08,_ -• m u nn ..- '1>s 4 Plwor • 74F 10= ., ....S:.lyr< .. - .-,...,--,a ,....- .�'t� Renton MAP CTR '-17 -,i`J/, , '' 8 ranch Center ID ID COMPANY NAME '=22 .19 101.105i1O8?, 7,110, ' t4b,faY,48,9d9;t53; `, ,'1s �• 1 1. E87460 Honeywell gri 167,169,2_ ,347908,' 2. [80384 E R Solutions 1a —12 909 .' - = �'%-' ',- - _ - 3. E806663 U.S.Government 4. [80697 Valley Medical Center 1' •:-:2,,:a.:-'4,:'''-;.-‘,:.,11-,,I, ..'14„,, _ 5 E80721 Paccar Parts t' �r 28 • 6. E80747 Paccar ITD 4.13- ' 4j£ ' r ^ 7. [80762 King County Government TBJCW.4.8.u,'rldci;g t.`••_,'; i :_ •..X:',,,P .. - - 8. E81794 City of Renton m4;:,`k_ . 101,140,1 9. E83097 Kenworth Trude Company -%Rall;1WI&ri Z i '18.153, P y / 110,126, - "167,169,240,247 10- E84749 The Boeing Company / -140,154, '.':i",-;-, : _ - ------ 11. [84764 The Boeing Company Commutter Rail ,Q . 12. [84772 The Boeing Company 13. [85399 The Boeing Company 14. E85498 Wizards of the Coast is 15. E86561 King County Government 2 - 16. E87007 Hunter Douglas 17. [87304 The Boeing Company 18. 588229 Cummins Northwest re t 19. [88500 Cutter 8 Buck Inc l 20. [89433 Classmates.com 21. [89730 Renton Technical College 22. E99442 Microacan Systems,Inc RENTON - ,~�."e,a....NrP.wvr.. .e..p.e0...rbvemvas�... e../........4........................r......-•-..,.., da• Active CTR Sites ==waw ......� r.+rlop.pee.r—.p b7, x..0,..10.10,N.a.+,. FeMvery 7.zoo? King minty • XI-59 ` A ATTACHMENT E based Transportation Demand Management ordinance (with site design and other requirements) to complement the employer-based CTR ordinance and its employer worksite requirements. Parking Management Regulations Parking regulations are specified in Section 4-4-080 of the Renton Municipal Code. The regulations include requirements for new construction of parking including landscaping, screening, layout, paving, markings, and wheel stops. They also include requirements for size and amount of parking according to the land use activity involved. Ongoing transportation planning work will include refinement of criteria for locating park and ride lots serving residential areas to address factors such as the intensity of development in adjacent areas, the level of traffic congestion in the areas, proximity to arterial streets, and opportunities to buffer lots from living areas. Standards for construction of parking garages will be reviewed to address minimization of land area and the amount of impervious surface. Also,the city will be working with WSDOT,Puget Sound regional council, King county,Metro Transit and others to develop rules andcreate new plans to implement the CTR Efficiency Act adopted by theWashginton state Legislature in 2006. The CTR Efficiency Act includes changes to the CTR law to make the program more effective, efficient, and targeted. The modified CTR program will officially start on January 1, 2008. AIRPORT Renton's Airport is more than a transportation facility. It is also a vital element to Renton's commercial and industrial economy, providing aircraft services, manufacturing support, flight training, and other airport activities. The Airport Chapter of the Renton Transportation Element is implemented by the 2002 Airport Business Plan and the Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport. The intent of the objectives and policies is to support increased aviation activities and appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts when possible. (See also the Airport Compatible Land Use section of the Land Use Element.) Objectives The Airport Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-P: Promote and develop local air transportation facilities in a responsible and efficient manner and recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique, valuable, and long-standing public transportation facility within the region. T-Q: Maximize available space on the airport site for uses that require direct access to taxiways and runways such as storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities. T-R: Continue operation of the Airport as a Landing Rights Airport, ultimately providing permanent inspection facilities to the U.S. Customs Service. Policies Policy T-52. Support the land base and seaplane transportation-related benefits and the civic base activities. Acknowledge that there are prestige that are also associated with the airport. certain costs to the community associated with Policy T-53. Promote and develop airport the existence of the Renton Municipal Airport, facilities and services for all wheeled and float- such as noise generation, but recognize that these equipped aircraft, owners,pilots, and passengers costs have historically been accepted by the in a manner that maximizes safety, efficiency, community in exchange for the economic and and opportunity for use. xi-60 • ATTACHMENT E Policy T-54. Lease airport property for aviation- Policy T-56. Develop appropriate land use plans related uses that create jobs and expand the City's and regulations for structures and vegetation tax base. within the airport's runway approach zone. (See Policy T-55. The Renton Municipal Airport Airport section of the Land Use Element, provides the only publicly owned seaplane Objectives LU-E, LU-F, LU-G and Policies LU- facility in the area and, therefore, the northern 19—LU-30.) shoreline of the airport should be restricted to seaplane access. Airport Facilities The Renton Municipal Airport is a major general aviation airport in the Puget Sound area. The Renton Municipal Airport is founally designated as a Reliever Airport in the Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Regional Airport System Plan. The airport is owned by the City of Renton and is located in the northwest corner of the city, bounded generally on the east by the Cedar River, on the west by Rainier Avenue North, on the south by Airport Way, and on the north by Lake Washington (see Figure 1.1). The Airport consists of approximately 165.46 acres. It is oblong in shape, and has one runway with two parallel taxiways with concrete and blacktop surfaces and surface water drainage. The runway, running southeast to northwest, is 5,379 feet long and 200 feet wide, with a 340-foot displaced threshold at the south end. It is equipped with medium intensity runway lighting, runway end identification lighting (REIL), and precision approach path indicators (PAPI). Taxiways are lighted, and there is a rotating beacon, a windsock, and a non-directional radio beacon. The Federal Aviation Administration operates a contracted Air Traffic Control Tower during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. May 1 through September 30 and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. October 1 through April 30. Approximately 115,000 landings and take-offs per year take place at the Airport, making it the seventh busiest airport in the State of Washington. Contiguous to the Renton Airport is the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base. Landings and take-offs from the water are not recorded, but during the summer months the seaplane base is one of the busiest in the Northwest. Airport Activities The Renton Airport serves general aviation demand generated by Renton, as well as by other communities generally within a 30-minute driving time (e.g. Bellevue to the north, Issaquah to the east,Kent to the south, and Seattle to the northwest). The concept of"general aviation" includes all aviation uses except scheduled commercial passenger airline servicesand military operations. Consequently, nearly all of the aviation operations at Renton Airport are those of general aviation, including the flights of the transport-class aircraft produced by the adjacent Boeing plant. General aviation uses are both personal and revenue- producing, the latter category including business, charter, and flight instruction. The seaplane base provides facilities only for small general aviation types of aircraft(both personal and revenue-producing). Aircraft services available at the Airport include aircraft maintenance and service, fuel, flight instruction, aircraft charter and rental, and aircraft storage, both hangared and open. Fixed base operators (FBO's), which are aviation-oriented businesses offering a variety of services and products to aircraft owners and '44ase operators, provide these services to the aviation public. X1-61 ATTACHMENT E Airport Master Plan and Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan 1997 Airport Master Plan Update A 1997 update to the original 1978 Master Plan was approved by the City Council in August 1997. A primary purpose of the 1997 update was to determine the existing and future role of the airport and to provide the City with information and direction in the future planning and continued development of the airport. The objective of the study was to develop a plan for providing the necessary facilities to best accommodate the aviation needs of the airport and contiguous seaplane base over the next twenty years. The study work scope consisted of inventories, forecasts of aviation demand, demand/capacity analyses, facility requirements,airport layout plans and land use plans, development staging and costs, financial plans, and an environmental impact assessment report. The Airport Master Plan is updated as necessary to reflect progress and changes from the original Master Plan. The 1997 Airport Master Plan should be updated in 2005 or 2006 as many of the recommendations from the 1997 Airport Master Plan have been implemented. The remaining recommendations should be re-evaluated in the next update of the Airport Master Plan as conditions have changed. 2002 Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan The 2002 Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan was prepared at the direction of the Renton City Council. The purpose of the plan was to review business potential for the Airport and develop a plan for the management and operation of the Airport, given the needs of aviation and the neighborhoods surrounding the airport. The Airport Business Plan reaffirmed Renton's commitment to strong management and operation of the Renton Municipal Airport. The recommendations reaffirmed the mix of uses presently at the Airport while supporting increased efforts to curb aircraft noise. Implementation of the Airport Master Plan The airport development and financial plan portions of the Master Plan identify the capital improvements that should be accomplished, specify when these improvements should be accomplished, and determine the economic feasibility of accomplishing the programmed improvements and developments. The schedule of developments and improvements is established in five-year increments, to coincide with the five-, 10-and 20-year projections of the Master Plan. Based upon the five-year schedule of improvements and developments, Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program Funds are requested for assistance with the accomplishment of those eligible projects programmed in the Master Plan. FREIGHT The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element addresses the needs and impacts of goods movement and distribution in Renton. The Freight Chapter focuses on the two primary providers of freight transportation: trucking and freight rail. Objectives The Freight Chapter is based on the following objectives: XI-62 ATTACHMENT E T-S: Maintain existing freight rail service to Renton commercial and industrial sites. T-T: Maintain truck access between Renton industrial areas and the regional highway system. T-U: Minimize the impact of truck traffic on general traffic circulation and on Renton neighborhoods. Policies Policy T-57. Heavy through truck traffic should Policy T-60. Strategies to minimize adverse be limited to designated truck routes in order to impacts of railroad operations on adjacent reduce its disruptive impacts. (In this context, residential property should be supported. "disruptive impacts" refers to nuisances, particularly noise and parking, associated with Policy T-61. Support railroad crossing heavy trucks. In addition, the intent of the improvements that minimize maintenance and policies is to minimize the physical impact of protect the street surface. heavy trucks on city streets.) Policy T-62. Where warranted, provide Policy T-58. Transportation facilities should be protective devices, such as barriers and warning designed to complement railroads. signals, on at grade crossings. Policy T-59. Spur tracks should be located to Policy T-63. The City should continue to work with local, regional, state and federal agencies to provide a minimum number of street crossings address regional freight needs and to mitigate and serve a maximum number of sites. local impacts. Truck Routes The City has a system of truck routes (see Figure 7-1). . Trucks weighing over 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight are restricted to operating on one of the designated truck routes. Trucks needing to make deliveries off of the designated truck routes are required to take the most direct arterial route to/from one of the designated truck routes. When more than one delivery off the designated truck routes can be combined to limit multiple intrusions into residential neighborhoods, a truck driver has an obligation to combine those trips. The truck route ordinance does not apply to the operation of Renton School District buses on designated routes,public transit on designated routes, garbage trucks, city maintenance vehicles, or emergency vehicles. 'w XI-63 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 7-1 TRUCK ROUTES Ned t. Truck Routes ili Legend 1 ro) E �Truck Route P f )).17 ` Transportation / ��ttll City Limit _, i Plan / �� / "i: 1 �cestle Renton �" Planning Area ' ,--, !C ; 1. 111 Ti. v'�� .fr �;�_ Nu To Sc..k gnu11 Ij ' • , __' a • 111111.1 • , ,., Mkt" I 111d1W1►11111114111 v� IF • NW k111II:4 )11**4111' . . 411tL*! f 1 1am??` ... + reett��,.• III Renton .1 1 ' - - I,�Maim __ 1 � ^` :.�war/ q1 -144,_ 11.1 Adill Itili ��:. 1 1111111A*011; :� 111? "�q fit,��I�:��r�OVIIENATLIfffabf � ,41 .r �I.IibwrIlJi � r R, ii• ��11s;. , (77-., . • , 1I 4de viti i . ji ( ..",_,__. L*Ii.c ) iffill — \ !entT� , : 11 (III i i' XI-64 ATTACHMENT E ivirre Nose ilkore XI-65 ATTACHMENT E Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element recognizes the importance of maintaining rail Ned transportation, which supports industrial and commercial land uses, and provides one component of a multi-modal transportation system. The Freight Chapter also provides guidelines to ensure that existing rail lines do not impact adjacent land uses, create maintenance problems for City streets or pose safety concerns. Freight rail service is currently available to several industrial and commercial areas of the City. Existing rail lines bordering the City of Renton include the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)main line tracks between Seattle and Tacoma. Within the City of Renton, the BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line connects Renton and the east side of Lake Washington to the BNSF main line. The BNSF main line runs in a north-south direction and is located along the City of Renton's western city limits, separating Renton from the City of Tukwila. The BNSF main line is double-track, and carries a considerable volume of freight service, as well as passenger service provided by Amtrak under a trackage rights agreement. Only freight service is provided to the City of Renton from the BNSF main line. A single spur track with several branch lines serves the Renton Valley industrial area (southwest Renton). Another single spur track from the BNSF main line serves the Container Corporation of America plant, located north of I-405 in the Earlington industrial area. Use of these spur lines is intermittent, usually on an as-needed basis with no particular set time or frequency. Commuter rail trains use the BNSF main line, with a stop at the new Renton/Tukwila (Longacres) station located just south of I-405. The commuter rail service is an element of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move), approved by voters in 1996. The commuter rail service began in 2001. Three trains currently provide one-way service between Tacoma and Seattle during the weekday AM peak period and between *411101* Seattle and Tacoma in the weekday PM peak period, with stops at the Renton/Tukwila station. The BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line splits from the BNSF main line at the Black River Junction, and continues easterly through downtown Renton and then northerly through the North Renton industrial area. The line continues north along the east side of Lake Washington, and connects back with the BNSF main line in Snohomish County. Freight service on this branch line is provided by two trains per day(one in each direction). Passenger excursions are made on this branch line by the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train, which makes one round trip on weekdays and two round trips on weekends between downtown Renton and Woodinville at the north end of Lake Washington. Three spur tracks off of the branch line provide freight service to the Earlington industrial area in west central Renton. Two spur tracks serve the North Renton industrial area north of downtown Renton. Freight service can occur at any time during the day. The Spirit of Washington Dinner Train leaves downtown Renton at 6:00 p.m. and returns by 10:00 p.m. with an additional afternoon run on weekends. The infrequent use of the BNSF main line spur tracks and the BNSF branch line results in minimal disruption to vehicular traffic movement in Renton. The UPRR mainline track, located 200 to 300 feet west of the BNSF mainline and Renton's City limits, also runs in a north-south direction. The UPRR mainline is a single track, carrying a somewhat lower level of freight-only service. XI-66 • ATTACHMENT E Regional Accessibility `%Nov Trucks and Industrial Traffic Truck access from City of Renton industrial areas to the regional highway/freeway system has the option of several alternative designated truck routes (see Figure 7-1). The\alley industrial area (southwest Renton) is directly connected to the regional system via the S.W.43–Street/SR-167 (Valley Freeway) interchange and the SR-181 (West Valley Highway)/I-405 interchange. The Earlington industrial area in west central Renton is served by designated truck routes on Rainier Avenue and Grady Way, which provide direct access to SR-167 and to I-405 (via the SR-181/I-405 and SR-167/I-405 interchanges). Truck access to the North Renton industrial area (north of downtown Renton and west of 1-405) from I- 405 is provided via the designated truck route on Park Avenue North. Another truck route to I-405 and SR-167 from the North Renton industrial area is via North 6`h Street, Airport Way, and Rainier Avenue. Truck and industrial traffic access from I-405 to the King County waste transfer station and maintenance shops east of 1-405 is provided via the Sunset and Maple Valley(SR-169) interchanges and N.E. 3rd Street-N.E. 4`h Street. The Stoneway Sand and Gravel complex, west of I-405, generates industrial traffic that uses the North Park Avenue on-ramp to access I-405. Arterial improvement projects in the Transportation Plan will enhance truck access between the industrial areas and the regional highway/freeway system. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Future land use development is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in rail freight service in Renton. Future plans call for additional commuter rail trains using the BNSF main line, stopping at the Renton/Tukwila(Longacres) station. `fir' Freight Action Strategy(FAST) Corridor The Freight Action Strategy(FAST) corridor, and the projects which comprise FAST, evolved over several years. Beginning in 1994, the Freight Mobility Roundabout a jointly-sponsored effort of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the public/private Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County—made a sustained commitment to freight mobility within and through the northwest gateway region, which ties the regional (and national) economy to the Pacific Rim. Roundabout participants include shippers and carriers representing all freight mobility modes: marine, rail, truck, air, and intermodal. Other participants are public agencies at all levels: local governments (including the City of Renton), the three ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett, WSDOT and the State Transportation Commission, and federal agencies(FHWA, FTA). Late in 1994 the United States Department of Transportation together with the Roundabout, the WSDOT, and the Puget Sound Regional Council established FAST Corridor. FAST Corridor is a collection of complementary grade separation and port access projects within the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma area of Washington State. Collectively, these projects will enhance the movement of freight within and through the region. Key points of the FAST Corridor projects include: • Between Everett in the north and Tacoma in the south, focus on the region's north-south rail routes and port access routes. • Helping to improve the state and region's transportation capacity to better meet the needs for freight and goods movements. • Implementation of a series of grade separation and port access improvements, along with some corollary improvements. These improvements will complement other freight and passenger rail improvements in the region, regional ITS efforts, and other planned highway improvements. XI-67 ATTACHMENT E • Continuation of the FAST Corridor Partnership, which has been functioning since 1995 and is working on determining appropriate project level solutions to regional freight mobility issues. Local freight improvement projects identified at this time include additional rail lines for both the BNSF and UPRR lines. BNSF has plans to add a third and a fourth track to its mainline along the western edge of the City. UPRR also has plans to add a third additional track to its mainline that runs parallel to and is in close proximity to the BNSF mainline. A grade separation of the BNSF and UPRR mainlines at South 180"' Street in Tukwila(S.W. 43rd Street in Renton) was completed in 2003. These improvements are a constructive first step toward improving rail freight travel along the western boundary of the City of Renton and associated freight rail travel passing through Renton. The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board(FMSIB): • develops and maintains a comprehensive and coordinated state program to facilitate freight movement between and among local, national and international markets; • works to find solutions that lessen the impact of the movement of freight on local communities; • proposes policies, projects, corridors, and funding to the state legislature to promote strategic investments in a statewide freight mobility transportation system; and • proposes projects that lessen the impact of freight movement on local communities. In 2003, the FMSIB selected the SW 27`''/Strander Boulevard project to receive 54,000,000. It is anticipated these funds will be programmed by 2006. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION The Financing and Implementation Chapter outlines the strategies and actions to finance and implement the transportation improvements and programs planned as part of the City of Renton's transportation plan. Renton will meet transportation needs through arterial, transit, high occupancy vehicle, non-motorized improvements, travel demand management programs, and airport, truck and rail plans as outlined in previous discussion of the transportation plan. The Financing and Implementation Chapter includes: • Goals, objectives and policies relating to financing and implementation of the transportation plan. • Information on current revenue sources and future revenues. • Assessment of Renton's 20-year transportation needs and funding capability. • Assessment of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) with regard to transportation improvements and programs identified in this document. • Strategies and actions for financing and implementing the transportation plan over the next 20 years. • Identifying future ongoing work needed to finance and implement the transportation plan. Objectives The Financing and Implementation Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-V: Pursue adequate funding for transportation improvements from all potential sources in an efficient and equitable manner. Ned XI-68 ATTACHMENT E T-W: Develop a staging and implementation plan that expedites transportation system improvement projects that i) improve HOV flow, n) improve transit service, iii) improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and iv) provide neighborhood protection against the impacts of through traffic. Policies Policy T-64. To support economic Policy T-67. Establish a mechanism to provide development, growth related traffic multi jurisdictional cooperation to fund improvements should be funded by a transportation improvements. This could combination of impact fees charged to new include establishing joint and/or coordinated development and business license fees. transportation mitigation systems with other jurisdictions. Policy T-65. Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships to help pay for Policy T-68. Create a funding mechanism that transportation improvements. can be applied across boundaries to address the impact of growth outside the city limits on the Policy T-66. Pursue federal, state and local City's transportation system. sources of funding(e.g. loans, matching funds) for transportation improvements. Transportation Program Costs To deteiunne transportation financing needs, a twenty-year(2002 to 2022) program(including arterial, HOY, transit and non-motorized components identified previously in this document) was established, and a planning level cost estimate prepared. Also included as an element of the 20-year funding needs are annual transportation programs that include: transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance; traffic operations and safety projects and programs; Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction programs; neighborhood livability projects and programs; and, ongoing project development. These annual programs support and supplement the Street Network, HOV, Transit and Non-motorized Elements and are a necessary part of maintaining transportation level of service standards. The total cost of the 20-year transportation plan is estimated at$134 million. The costs of the various components of this plan are summarized in Table 8.1. The costs for the arterial, HOV and non-motorized components represent Renton's costs (including Renton's share of responsibility under joint projects with WSDOT and other local jurisdictions). This cost does not include costs of transportation projects that are the responsibility of the state, King County, and other cities (Newcastle, Tukwila, and Kent). The transit costs include only local match for Renton's local feeder system improvements, park-and-ride lots, signal priority, and transit amenities. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement of the 20-year transportation plan and costs. Inventory of Funding Sources Having established a 20-year transportation funding level of$134 million, an annual funding level of$6.7 million can be determined. Sources of revenue to provide this annual funding need are identified on Table 8.2. The Business License Fee is an annual per capita fee assessed to all businesses within the City of Renton. Currently, 85% of the annual revenue generated from this fee is dedicated to fund transportation improvements. The Business License Fee is assumed to contribute 28% of the future annual funding level. X1-69 ATTACHMENT E TABLE 8.1 RENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES Arterial Plan: _ $ 60,000,000 HOV Plan: _ $ 26,000,000 Transit Plan: _ $ 15,000,000 Non-motorized Plan: _ $ 4,500,000 Annual Programs: _ $ 28,500,000 Total 20-Year Cost = $ 134,000,000 Nied XI-70 ATTACHMENT E TABLE 8.2 °rrr CITY OF RENTON SOURCE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Annual 20-Year Business License Fee $ 1.88 million $ 37.6 million Half-Cent Gas Tax $ 0.35 million $ 7.0 million Grants $ 3.90 million $ 78.0 million Developer Mitigation $ 0.57 million * $ 11.4 million * TOTAL FUNDS: $ 6.70 million $ 134.0 million * In addition, there will be site-specific mitigation. The Half-Cent Gas Tax is a portion of the State gas tax revenue that is distributed to local jurisdictions based on population. The Half-Cent Gas Tax is assumed to remain at its current level and contribute 5.2% of the future annual funding level. The City of Renton has aggressively pursued federal and state grants in the past, which is assumed to continue, thus providing 58% of the future annual funding level. Examples of federal grants include the Surface Transportation Program(STP), Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ), and Transportation Enhancements Program, which are awarded regionally by the Puget Sound Regional Council and bridge replacement, road safety, and railroad crossing improvement programs administered by WSDOT. State grants include those provided by the Transportation Partnership Program(TPP), the Arterial Improvement Program (AIP), and Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Program(PSMP), which are administered by the Transportation Improvement Board. Developer mitigation revenue is obtained by the City of Renton through an assessment on development city-wide, based on the number of daily vehicle trips generated by a specific development multiplied by a fee per vehicle trip. Developer mitigation is assumed to contribute 9%of the future annual funding level. It should be noted that developer mitigation is not a reliable(or stable) source of transportation funds (as required by GMA). The irregularity of private development projects and thus uneven flow of mitigation revenue contribute to the unreliability of developer mitigation. It should also be noted that, in addition to a mitigation fee,private development approval will be conditioned on site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent off-site transportation facility impacts are mitigated. Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are formed by property owners to provide funds for the portion of the cost of improvement projects that benefit the properties. Petitions from two-thirds of the property owners of property equal to two-thirds of the assessed valuation of the LID area are required in order to form an LID. Because it cannot be determined when there will be enough petitioners to foi an LID and, therefore, w X1-71 ATTACHMENT E it is not known when an LID can be formed to make improvements, LIDs have not been included as a source of transportation funds. The above revenue sources are projected to remain approximately the same over the next 20 years, though the percent contribution from individual sources may change. However, trends in transportation financing are becoming apparent, which could affect the City of Renton's transportation revenue. The trends include: declining revenue available from several existing sources, such as the half-cent gas tax; transportation needs growing faster than available revenues; local, state, and federal requirements on transportation improvements lengthening the design process and increasing cost; the undetermined potential for new funding sources; and,the continued inability of regional agencies to address regional transportation needs. Ongoing transportation planning work will include a review and update of current revenue sources to reflect federal, state, and regional decisions regarding these revenue sources. Funding Program The Growth Management Act(GMA) requires "an analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources." This includes development of a "multi-year financing plan" based on the needs identified in the transportation plan with "appropriate parts" serving as the basis for the Six-year Transportation Program required by the RCW for cities. The following presents the City of Renton's transportation finance plan(as required by GMA) and the underlying assumptions, which are: ♦ to provide both a 20-year and a six-year transportation improvement program • establish consistency between the six-year and 20-year programs. A 20-year transportation program (comprised of improvements discussed previously in the Street Network, HOV, Transit, and Non-motorized Chapters and annual transportation programs) and a planning level cost estimate of$134 million (summarized on Table 8.2)have been established first. Based on the 20-year funding level of$134 million, an annual funding level of$6.7 million was determined. Having established an annual funding rate it can reasonably be assumed that if this funding level is maintained, if the facilities being funded are consistent with the 20-year plan, and if transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously emphasized, it should be reasonable to assume that the level of service can be maintained for the intervening years with the established funding rate. The City of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) is part of an on-going process intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Six-Year TIP is also linked with various state and federal funding programs,regional/inter/jurisdictional planning and coordination processes, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Projects are developed and prioritized based on both specific goals to be achieved by the program and on general programming considerations. Those general programming considerations are: Planning. How a project fits with or addresses identified future transportation goals, demands, and planning processes must be evaluated on both a local and regional level. This is strongly influenced by ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans. Financing. Many projects are dependent on receiving outside grants, formation of LIDs, or the receipt of mitigation funds. Prioritization has to take into account the peculiarities of each of the various fund sources and the probabilities of when, and how much, money will be available. XI-72 ATTACHMENT E Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with, or interdependent on, other projects taking place, it is reflected in their relative priorities. Past Commitments. The level of previous commitment made by the City in terms of resources, legislative actions or interlocal agreements also must be taken into consideration in prioritizing TIP projects. In addition to the general considerations discussed above, there are five specific project categories through which the TIP is evaluated and analyzed. They are: • Preservation of Existing Infrastructure • Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management • Community Livability and Enhancement • Economic Development • Operations and Safety These categories provide a useful analysis tool and represent goals developed through an evaluation of the City's transportation program in response to input from citizens and local officials and to State and federal legislation. Taken as a whole, the five categories provide a framework for evaluating projects both individually and as part of a strategy that seeks to meet and balance the transportation needs of Renton during a time of increasing transportation demand, decreasing revenues, and growing environmental concerns. `or soe Although each project can be identified with an important concern that allows it to be classified into one of the five categories, most projects are intended to address, and are developed to be compatible with, multiple goals. Preservation of the existing infrastructure is a basic need that must be met by the program. The Mayor, City Council and Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee have all addressed the importance of sustaining strong programs in this project category. The State Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to assess and address the funding required to maintain their existing transportation system. Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)projects and programs are oriented toward "moving people" through a balanced transportation system that involves multiple modes of transportation and provides alternatives to the existing heavy reliance on the single occupant vehicle (SOV). Included are projects that facilitate the movement of transit and carpools, and programs that promote the use of high occupancy vehicles(HOV's) and reduce the numbers of SOV's. The Federal Transportation Efficiency Act, the State and Federal Clean Air legislation and the State Commute Trip Reduction Act have added momentum to regional efforts and placed requirements on local jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these transportation elements. Community livability and enhancement consists of projects that have been developed with major emphasis on addressing community quality of life issues by improving and/or protecting residential livability while providing necessary transportation system improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in this category. Nor XI-73 ATTACHMENT E Economic development projects and programs involve transportation improvements necessitated by new development that is taking place. Thus, a significant source of local funding for these projects is projected to come from mitigation payments and from specific access needs financed by new development in the City of Renton. Operations and safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts, accident records and geometric data, but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. The City of Renton's adopted 2007-2012 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program includes many of the transportation improvements and programs identified in the Street Network, Transit, HOV,Non- motorized and Transportation Demand Management Chapters of this Transportation Element. The projects or programs are listed in Table 8.3. Also shown in Table 8.3 are annual programs (transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance, traffic operations and safety; projects and programs, ongoing project development). The following lists various 2007-2012 TIP projects under each of the chapters of the Transportation Element. XI-74 ATTACHMENT E TABLE 8.3 *we CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Now XI-75 lk 1) 1) , IH S m Hi, §§g iumEs-§ „§§mi �g .r �i . gr §§§§go! Y -U .m .m (75 oS.2g $N 0 38 E8 2'n e28 8 2� 8 28 r V e0 5 o„B-r”" o 08 N 2'n- 29, ,g29,9287-9,8 22 2 8 y ry - z N 9 o I §g§§§§§"H 0000§r§ §§,§§§§§oo§"§8§§§§§§°§§°meg§F§§o- o U „SNE§wmw nm 28 89 . 8 g8 8 r 9 89z8 _„ u.29 z i ao 3 o X §§§§§§§§§§§ 00088'§§§§§ §§§'§§§§§§§§§§o§§1§§ o§door' m a giF9999 ,,,,,,199 88 °" 999 828 99 899 0 j , z v m iMg.8=pnEllEEV84E'Enw49 482E8ert2,28 28 42'E'4'148,8 Z j ,,, Z 3 ��smm§E>oEe� ilEM,§gy m §§§4M"gF �s EE§WWr Vii l or - Fp C m i „22t «t• c g o aago 3 E'wE w i RE uR 3S 2 a s -.7, q E« m°.'3 1!Fi, gEL iax111'1 > 0 1, i.ro, OA U11 cic c` yS C wg 1Paifp, cac.mi `eai�a4i;; >°%,--= % .cheoja�zo> 6m � 1Z $$ maiAm � ^ NWw.W ' figo bd > c-!tvgaaaz.aodumgW, s- ;- , F NZF =3 w wnmg NHw UmF m4N SO W C -« �``«• - . �� •--• aFAA'AXFaAR:.,. An A5::2333:3:$�22X U E' F ATTACHMENT E Street Network • South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (TIP #13) • Rainier Avenue—SW 4th Place to SW 7th Street(TIP#11) • Grady Way—Main Avenue to West City Limits(TIP#38) • Lind Avenue S.W. —S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 43`d Street(TIP#48) • Duvall Ave N.E. — Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits (TIP #32) • Mill Avenue South/Can Road (TIP#52) • Strander Boulevard—SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (TIP#3) • Sunset Boulevard/Duvall Avenue NE (TIP #50) • N.E. 3`d/N.E. 4th Corridor Improvements (TIP #4) • Rainier Avenue Corridor Study/Improvements (TIP #7) • Lake Washington Blvd. —Park Avenue North to Coulon Park(TIP #40) • Park Avenue North/Sunset Boulevard—North 6th to Duvall Avenue N.E. (TIP #47) • South Renton Neighborhood Improvements (#15) • N.E. 4th/Hoquiam Avenue N.E. (TIP #18) Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial Circulation Program (TIP #19), which will provide funding for further development of multi-modal improvements on Renton's arterials to support the Transportation Plan and comply with clean air legislation. Also included are expenditures for project development studies (TIP #17) for development of future TIP projects and grant applications for currently proposed and future TIP projects. Transit • Transit Program: facilities to support regional transit service, local transit service improvements; development of park and ride lots, transit amenities (TIP #6) • Renton Urban Shuttle(RUSH) Program: operation of the shuttle bus service within Renton. (TIP #5) Also, the HOV Chapter improvements identified below will be designed to enhance transit service. HOY th • SR-167 / S.W. 27— Street HOV (TIP #3) • Sound Transit HOV Direct Access (TIP #25) • SR-169 HOV—Sunset Blvd. to east City Limits (TIP #49) It should be noted that the expenditure shown for Sound Transit HOV Direct Access (TIP #25) is for coordination with the State and Sound Transit direct access interchange improvements. Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial HOV Program(TIP #45), which will provide funding for further development of Renton HOV improvements identified previously in the HOV Plan(Figure 3-1),to examine additional routes and corridors for HOV facilities in Renton, and for coordination with direct access HOV projects. Non-Motorized • CBD Bike and Pedestrian Connections (TIP#26) XI-77 ATTACHMENT E Also included in the proposed Six-Year TIP is the Walkway Program(TIP#10), which will provide funding for sidewalk and handicap curb ramp needs identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Program. The Bicycle Route Development Program(TIP #39) will upgrade existing bicycle routes, construct missing links in the bicycle route system, and develop, evaluate, prioritize future bicycle facilities. These projects are in addition to bicycle and pedestrian improvements, anticipated as part of arterial, HOV and transit projects. Implementation of the non-motorized element falls into two categories -walkways/sidewalk and bike facilities. Each of these components are described below. Walkways/Sidewalks Implementation. The implementation procedures for the City's comprehensive walkway/sidewalk program is detailed in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study. This report identifies the sidewalk and curb ramp needs within the City. Specific improvements will be prioritized and will respond to the needs of school children, the aged and persons with disabilities, and will support increased use of transit. Bike Facilities Implementation. Bicycle facilities include lanes along roadways and signed bicycle routes. Current funding is provided for the construction of segments of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Bicycle route designation and signing along City roadways is provided on an as-needed basis by the Transportation Systems Division of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. Project prioritization is determined by the Transportation Systems Division in coordination with the Community Services Department. Funding for bicycle signing is provided through the capital improvement programs and the General Fund operating budgets of the Transportation Systems Division. Signing specifically identified as part of transportation projects will be funded through the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Trails Implementation. Many of the planned pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, administered by the Community Services Department, would be valuable components of the transportation system, and, therefore, are coordinated with the Transportation Plan. The Long Range, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan contains the recommended six-year trails development program. Only projects that are specifically identified as transportation facilities will be included in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). TDM/CTR • Transportation Demand Management Program: implement Commute Trip Reduction Act requirements, other TDM programs (TIP #34) Funding Assessment A 20-year transportation program has been established having an estimated cost of$134 million. This program was the basis for determining an annual funding level of$6.7 million. Assuming this annual funding level can be maintained over the 20-year period (2002-2022), it is reasonably certain that the 20- year transportation program can be implemented. Annual reassessment of transportation needs, continuing to aggressively pursue grant funding, and/or continuation of the strong rate of growth in Renton, which will generate higher developer mitigation revenue, will be needed over the intervening years in order to assume the 2022 transportation program can be achieved. The City of Renton's proposed 2007-2012 Six-Year TIP includes 54 individual projects and programs,with a total estimated cost of$169 million. Of this total cost, approximately $127.7 million is to be expended Nolard X1-78 ATTACHMENT E over the 2007-2012 six-year period. (It should be noted that for several projects and programs, expenditures over the six-year period are shown, not the total project or program cost.) The difference of about$41.3 million represents expenditures prior to year 2007. The projected revenues over the six-year period, based on the established $6.7 million annual funding, will total $40.2 million. The TIP identified expenditures of$127.7 million is $87.5 million more than the projected revenues. Of this $87.5 million, approximately$44 million represents the amount of participation anticipated by the State, Sound Transit, King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and private sector contributions on joint projects. As previously discussed, transportation improvement expenditures of other jurisdictions have not been included when establishing the $6.7 million annual funding level. Therefore, the Six-Year TIP expenditures exceed projected revenues by$33.5 million. In order for projects to be eligible for projected funding, they must be, by law, included in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Because it is not possible to know which projects will qualify for funding, the Six-Year TIP includes a cross-section of projects to provide a list of projects that will he eligible for funding from the various revenue sources, when and if, such funds become available. The result is a Six-Year TIP which has expenditures exceeding projected revenues. The challenge for the future will be to secure enough funding for the City of Renton, Cities of Tukwila and Kent, King County, Sound Transit, and the state to implement the improvements to their respective facilities included in the Transportation Plan. However, several strategies for acquiring needed funding are evident at this time. They include: • Establish inteijurisdictional funding mechanisms, such as payment of mitigation fees to address impacts of growth within adjacent jurisdictions that affect the City of Renton. Now' ♦ Update transportation priorities annually and incorporate in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. ♦ Continue to work more aggressively with adjacent cities, King County, Washington State Department of Transportation and other agencies to fund their respective improvements in the Transportation Plan, i.e., through joint projects. • Continue to work with regional agencies to encourage them to find and fund regional solutions for regional transportation problems. Mitigation Process There are new laws and regulations that have tremendous impacts on land use, the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs, and costs and funding of transportation projects. Examples are the Wetlands Management Ordinance, Surface Water Management Ordinance, the Clean Air Act, Commute Trip Reduction Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Growth Management Act. As a result, a transportation mitigation policy and process has been developed as part of the transportation plan. This mitigation policy serves as a framework for the citywide mitigation payment system that was adopted by the City in 1996. This mitigation policy includes the City of Renton: • Developing a citywide 20-year transportation system improvement plan(defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan). ♦ Determining the cost of the citywide 20-year transportation improvements to support new *,. development. XI-79 ATTACHMENT E ♦ Establishing a fee for developments'pro-rated share of the cost of the citywide 20-year transportation improvements (in addition to site-specific mitigation required by the City). This mitigation fee would be established during the SEPA review process and paid during the project development process. • Continuing the current established business license fee and percentage of the business license fee allocated for transportation purposes as has been the custom in the past. • Having the flexibility to modify the citywide transportation plan as needed to address environmental/regional coordination issues. • Approving future development conditioned upon site specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent transportation facility impacts are mitigated, and the payment of the mitigation fee as the development's fair share contribution towards: 1)ensuring that the cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated; and 2) maintaining the City of Renton adopted level of service standard. Site specific improvements could include construction of additional traffic lanes and/or traffic signals. Mitigation Payment System The development mitigation fairshare cost has been established at$75 per daily vehicle trip. The developer mitigation fee is based on the total daily increase in vehicle trips generated by the specific development project multiplied by the vehicle trip rate fee. In addition to this fee, there may be site-specific improvements required by the City, such as construction or contribution towards construction of additional traffic lanes and/or traffic signals, to mitigate on-site and adjacent facility impacts. (New business development will also pay the annual per capita business license as currently required of all businesses in the City of Renton). Additional information on the determination of the mitigation trip rate fee is contained in the Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document. A development may qualify for reduction of the $75 per vehicle trip mitigation fee through certain credits for development incentives, construction of needed transportation improvements (arterial, HOV, transit), through public/private partnerships, and transportation demand management programs. Specific credits and the amount of reduction in the mitigation trip rate fee that could result from such credits will be determined on a case by case basis during the development permitting process. The Mitigation Payment System provides flexibility to modify the basic trip rate fee as needed to respond to the effect that credits may have on developer mitigation as a funding source. Concurrency Management System The Growth Management Act(GMA) describes concurrency as the situation where adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. This description includes the concept of available public facilities. The GMA defines "available public facilities" as facilities or services in place, or a financial commitment in place, to provide the facilities within a specified time. For transportation, the specified time is six years from time of development. City of Renton policies that support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land Use Element and in this Element. To address concurrency under the GMA and City of Renton policies, a XI-80 ATTACHMENT E concurrency management system has been developed for the City of Renton that is based on the following process: Nor • The City of Renton will adopt a multi-modal Transportation Plan that will be consistent with regional plans and those of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the Transportation Plan will be defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • The City of Renton Transportation Level of Service (LOS)Policy, although it differs from the traditional LOS for arterials, is consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies and will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. • The Transportation Plan will include a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy. One of the fund sources will be mitigation fees collected from developers as a condition of land use development within the City of Renton. The approval of the development will be conditioned upon the payment of this Transportation Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent facility impacts. • The City of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the improvement elements of the citywide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS and land use development is met. • The City of Renton will establish concurrency by testing the citywide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level of ate,, Service standard. The City of Renton will adjust the transportation improvement plan as necessary to meet the LOS standard. • Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. Transportation Concurrency Regulations (Ordinance No. 4708, adopted 3-2-1998) and Guidelines and Procedures for Monitoring Transportation Concurrency(adopted 4-6-1998) comprise the procedures, standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new land use development. As specified in the Regulations and Guidelines and Procedures, a concurrency test is conducted by the City of Renton for each non-exempt development activity. The concurrency test determines consistency with the adopted citywide Level of Service standard and the Concurrency Management System, using rules and procedures established by the City of Renton. The concurrency test includes technical review of a development activity by the City of Renton to determine if the transportation system has adequate or unused or uncommitted capacity, or will have adequate capacity, to accommodate vehicle trips generated by the proposed development, without causing the level of service standard to decline below adopted standards, at the time of development or within six years. A written finding of concurrency is provided by the City prior to the approval of the development permit. If the development activity fails the concurrency test, the City allows the development applicant to submit alternative data,provide a traffic mitigation plan, or reduce the size of the development project in order to achieve concurrency. xI-81 ATTACHMENT E Monitoring, and evaluation of the City of Renton's Concurrency Management System and Transportation Concurrency Regulations will be reviewed as part of ongoing transportation work. Ned ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES The Environmental and Natural Resources Chapter describes objectives, policies, and strategies to help protect Renton's natural resources and Renton residents from unacceptable air and water quality impacts of the transportation system. Clean air and water are necessary for healthful living in an urban society. Objectives T-X: Protect and promote clean air to ensure a healthful environment. T-Y: Reduce vehicular emissions by encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and non- motorized transportation usage. T-Z: Ensure the long-term protection of the quality of water resources of the City of Renton. T-AA: Reduce the impact on water quality from vehicular pollutants associated with run-off from impervious transportation facility surfaces. T-BB: Preserve and protect natural resources (particularly critical areas and wildlife habitat). Policies Policy T-69. Promote programs which maintain Policy T-72. Incorporate in transportation mobile source pollutant levels at or below those facilities vehicular pollutant and surface water prescribed by the EPA, State Department of run-off management and treatment techniques Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. that maximize water quality. Policy T-70. Comply with the stipulations Policy T-73. Comply with the stipulations described in the State Implementation Plan(SIP) described in federal, state, and local water quality for air quality compliance. standards and regulations. Policy T-71. Promote water quality by Policy T-74. Develop transportation plans and encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, projects to comply with City, state, and federal transit, and non-motorized transportation usage. regulations that address critical areas and wildlife habitat. Also see related Policies in the Environmental County Countywide Planning Policies, which by this reference, are incorporated in this Chapter. Element, the Land Use Element, and the King Air Quality--Implementation Plan The City will subscribe to the plans, policies, and programs catalogued in the State Implementation Plan for air quality non-attainment areas. Transportation demand management(TDM) strategies will be encouraged, including the Commute Trip Reduction Law. Existing vehicle programs such as the winter oxygenated fuels and vehicle inspections will be continued, supported, and updated as requirements demand. XI-82 Amended 11/27/06 Ongoing transportation planning work will include the review of the latest information from state and local agencies regarding air quality non-attainment areas, severity of violations and implementation plans. Improving Water Quality The City of Renton will comply with federal, state, and local plans, policies and programs for water quality. The City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on increasing the availability and use of HOV, transit, and non-motorized transportation modes and transportation demand management strategies. The intent of this program is to reduce vehicular traffic which will make it possible to limit the expansion of the existing roadway system and, in certain locations, limit additional impervious surfaces. This, in turn, will reduce vehicular pollutants and their effect on water quality. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION A multitude of agencies are involved in transportation planning and improvement. To become better integrated into the regional transportation system, Renton needs to strengthen its role in the region, especially in South King County, East King County, and the Puget Sound area, and participate in regional forums as transportation decisions are made. This is particularly important since a disproportionate number of the vehicles on Renton's arterials are pass-through traffic. Also, Renton continues to be a major regional employment center and decisions made about future transportation systems for the Puget Sound area will directly impact the future of Renton's commercial and industrial base. With requirements of the Growth Management Act mandating concurrency between land use and transportation planning, the kind of interjurisdictional cooperation envisioned in the policies has become - more of a reality. However, in this environment it will become increasingly important for Renton to support negotiation tools such as interlocal agreements, and participate in interjurisdictional decision making. Therefore, the City of Renton participates in regional forums and supports transportation plans that preserve the livability of our neighborhoods, maintain the economic vitality of our City, and provide for an improved environment for future generations. This will be accomplished by: • providing a multi-modal regional plan with HOV, transit and other modes serving Renton: and • providing regional financial strategies which encourage other than SOV travel. The City of Renton has prepared and adopted a multi-modal Transportation Plan, which is consistent with regional plans and plans of neighboring cities. X1-83 Amended 11/27/06 Objectives Objectives and Policies which address the need for coordination between regional and local agencies with respect to transportation planning and operation needs are presented below: T-CC: Coordinate transportation operations,planning and improvements with other transportation authorities and municipalities. Policies commuter rail stations and light rail transit Policy T-75. A sub-regional transportation stations. system should be designed and implemented in Policy T-80. The City of Renton, in collaboration cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. with King County Transit(Metro), should place Policy T-76. WSDOT should provide funding for high priority in providing transit service to areas and construct grade-separated inside HOV lanes experiencing high residential and commercial with direct access (or barrier-separated HOV growth. facility) in the SR-167 corridor from Auburn to Policy T-81. The Regional Transit Authority Renton and 1-405 corridor, extending from Sea (Sound Transit) should provide transit service and Tac Airport north to Bothell. transit-oriented capital improvements in Renton Policy T-77. The Regional Transit Plan(RTP) consistent in size, scope, and cost with those should include regional express bus service to proposed in the voter-approved Sound Move. downtown Renton. Policy T-82. Give priority to working with King Policy T-78. Provide park-and-ride lots in County to ensure that King County policies unincorporated King County to intercept pass regarding transportation consistency/concurrency through traffic affecting the Renton street system. in Renton's Potential Annexation Areas are Transit service to these park-and-ride lots should compatible with Renton's transportation plans and be frequent in order to encourage transit usage. goals. Policy T-79. King County Transit(Metro) should Also see related Policies in the Transit Section provide intra-Renton bus service to serve local and King County Countywide Planning Policies. activity centers and employment centers, and to provide frequent, convenient access to future Current Coordination Activities The City of Renton has been actively involved in an ongoing dialogue with state, regional, and county agencies -- as well as adjacent jurisdictions and business and community groups in Renton -- concerning Renton's transportation planning goals and objectives. Coordination efforts underway include participation in the following primary forums. (Note: not all committees are listed.) State Coordination [Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)] I-405 Corridor Study. The City is participating in this WSDOT study along with representatives of affected jurisdictions adjacent to I-405. Renton elected officials serve on the study's Executive Committee and Renton staff serve on the Steering Committee and Technical Committee. The purpose of the study is to work with local jurisdictions to define transportation needs in the I-405 Corridor from Tukwila to Swamp Creek, and to develop transportation improvement projects for the corridor that complement local plans, goals, and objectives. XI-84 • Amended 11/27/06 Regional Coordination South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd). The purpose of the group is to serve as a central forum for information-sharing, consensus-building, coordination to resolve transportation issues, and to implement transportation programs and projects that benefit the region in general and South King County area jurisdictions in particular. Voting members include King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila. Non-Voting members include Sound Transit, Pierce Transit, the Port of Seattle, the Puget Sound Regional Council, WSDOT, and the State Transportation Improvement Board(TIB). Eastside Transportation Partnership (ETP). ETP is a coalition of Eastside cities (similar to SCATBd), with representatives from Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, Bothell, Mercer Island, Sammamish, Woodinville, Newcastle, and Renton. Representatives from WSDOT, Sound Transit, King County, PSRC, TIB, and Snohomish County also are participants. Renton's primary affiliation and purpose for participating in the group is to coordinate Eastside and South County issues. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The PSRC is a regional council of governments and the local MPO and RTPO, with representatives from every agency,jurisdiction, and governing body in King County, Pierce County, Kitsap County and Snohomish County. Staff level technical committees meet regularly to discuss a wide range of transportation topics related to the region's long range growth and transportation strategy as envisioned under VISION 2020 and Destination 2030, including finance, transportation improvement programs, commute trip reduction issues,regional transportation forecast data, air quality, and other issues requiring regional coordination. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority/Sound Transit. The City coordinates regularly with Sound Transit staff, as Sound Transit is the regional transit service provider. For long range planning, Renton and other jurisdictions are working with Sound Transit to implement Phase 1 of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move), which includes Regional Express bus service and associated capital facilities, and HOV/transit exclusive interchanges and/or arterial HOV improvements in Renton. County Coordination King County Metro. The City is also coordinating with King County Transit(Metro) in the development of local bus service plans that will complement the Sound Transit regional transit service concept. King County Public Works Directors. The City works as a member of this group on numerous and varied transportation action issues of concern to local jurisdictions including making recommendations for projects to be funded with the regional distribution of federal transportation funds. Commute Trip Reduction. Another group within King County is responsible for coordinating regional and South County Commute Trip Reduction(CTR) issues in cooperation with local jurisdictions and King County. Working groups have been established for the purpose of coordinating state-required CTR ordinance and plan development/adoption by local jurisdictions and King County. With most local jurisdictions having successfully adopted local CTR ordinances, the group is now focusing on the successful implementation of the ordinance requirements (working with affected employers) and on starting a parking review regional coordinating effort. ibiempe X1- 5 • Amended 11/27/06 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions The City of Renton is coordinating and will continue to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions through interlocal agreements and through appropriate regional, county, local, and state forums to assure consistency between plans, and to work out acceptable and appropriate agreements regarding local plans. Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan The City of Renton has adopted a position that specifies the elements that must be included in a regional transit plan in order for the City to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The City Council supports the following elements in the voter-approved regional system plan (Sound Move): 1. A bus element, with early emphasis on express bus service and TSM improvements proposed for the South County area; 2. A plan that increases local circulation transit services and feeder service connections and provides a variety of modal options; 3. High Capacity Transit (HCT) to urban and employment centers, including Renton; and 4. A plan that provides convenient connections within the regional bus service, local bus service, and between the light rail line and the commuter rail system. Renton is coordinating with Sound Transit to ensure commensurate transit services and/or roadway/freeway improvements should any elements of the approved regional plan that benefit Renton not be implemented. Strategies to Address Inconsistencies Inconsistencies between Renton, the State, King County, Sound Transit, and other local jurisdictions will be addressed by interlocal agreement as specified in King County Growth Management policies. ONGOING TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORK This Transportation Element includes a number of recommendations for ongoing transportation work. This additional work will include continued refinement of certain elements of the transportation plan and development of more detailed strategies and programs to implement the transportation plan. The specific transportation planning tasks are summarized in this section. Street Network Level of Service (LOS) Continue to refine and update Renton's LOS policy to reflect new information on regional and local transportation plans. Arterial Plan Conduct further analysis of the improvements included in the Arterial Plan to verify physical, operational, and financial feasibility. The analyses will include development of conceptual plans and cost estimates, assessment of neighborhood and environmental impacts, and the development of more detailed scopes of improvement, as appropriate. Adjust the Arterial Plan, as needed, to reflect the results on this analysis. Re-evaluate residential, commercial, and industrial access street function definitions and classifications. X1-86 r Amended 11/27/06 Transit 'rise Transit Plan Update and revise Renton's Transit Plan to reflect new information regarding the Regional Transportation Plan (Sound Move). Conduct further analysis of the local feeder system transit improvements identified in the City of Renton Transit Needs Assessment in order to verify operational and financial feasibility. (Includes the development and incorporation of more detailed bus routing and dial-a-ride needs.) Level of Service Continue to refine the transit index of Renton's LOS standard to address transit service frequency. HOV HOV Plan Continue the assessment of criteria for HOV facility planning, design, and operation. Conduct further analysis of the HOV improvements identified in the HOV Plan in order to verify physical, operational, and financial feasibility. Also, investigate other potential locations for HOV improvements, and define scope and cost of the proposed improvements in more detail, as appropriate. Level of Service Continue to update the HOV index of Renton's LOS standards, if needed. Allow Non-motorized Neighborhood and Regional Access Based on the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study, determine additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities that support Renton's access needs and complement the Regional Transit Plan and local transit system. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan Update the routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan to reflect the reassessment of neighborhood and regional access needs. Identify, in cooperation with other City of Renton departments and citizen groups, the facilities that could be included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. TDM/CTR Existing Parking Supply and Demand Inventory existing citywide on-site and off-site parking facilities to determine number of spaces and utilization, if needed during future review of parking policies, guidelines, and regulations. Parking Policy Review and Revisions Continue to review, update and/or revise Renton parking policies to complement other elements of the Renton Transportation Plan and to be consistent with regional parking policies. Working in regional forums propose parking regulation revisions to be worked out on a sub-regional basis. Employer Mode Split `err X1-87 • Amended 11/27/06 With assistance from King County, evaluate updated Renton employers CTR data and revise citywide employer mode split if needed. TDM/CTR Programs Renton's CTR ordinance was amended in February, 1998. Public and private employers have developed programs for complying with the ordinance. Annual review of these programs will be conducted to monitor progress toward meeting CTR goals. Also, the city will be working with WSDOT, Puget sound Regional council,King county, Metro Transit and others to develop rules and create new plans to implement the CTR Efficiency act adopted by the Washington State Legislature in 2006. The CTR Efficiency Act includes changes to the CTR law to make the program more effective, efficient and targeted. The modified CTR program will officially start on January 1, 2008. Parking Management Ordinance Continue to review the City of Renton parking regulations for revisions to complement the Renton Land Use Element and Transportation Element and to be consistent with regional and other local jurisdictional parking policies. Airport Continue to update the goals, objectives, policies, functional requirements, and implementation strategies of the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element as needed. Freight Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users Update assessment of rail use compatibility with current land uses and FAST implementation strategies. as needed. Regional Accessibility Continue to review, and update if needed, the assessment of Renton rail use with respect to implications of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move) and to reflect Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) decisions. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Review and update the assessment of freight and passenger rail needs, as appropriate. Financing and Implementation Program and Project Costs Update the scope and cost of improvements determined from the continued feasibility analysis of the arterial and HOV elements. Also, update the scope and cost of transit, non-motorized and other programs included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. Update the cost of the 20-year transportation plan, as needed. Mitigation Process Adjust the citywide developer mitigation fee structure, if needed, to reflect revisions to the financing plan resulting from further analysis of the Transportation Plan improvements and costs, and funding sources. Funding Program Adjust the priority of projects or programs identified under the Arterial,Transit, HOV, Non-Motorized, and TDM chapters as needed. Review the multi-year(20 years) financing plan and assess funding needs for the XI-88 Amended 11/27/06 identified projects or programs. Include appropriate projects and programs in the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Identify potential sources of additional funds, if funding from Nrr.r current sources is not adequate, and to reflect federal, State,regional or local decisions regarding availability of current sources. Concurrency Continue to review, and revise if needed, the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the Concurrency Management System(CMS) and update, as necessary, the rules, regulations and ordinances that implement the concurrency requirements. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions regarding CMS requirements and regulations. Environmental and Natural Resources Continue to review and revise, as needed, the objectives, policies and strategies to minimize or mitigate impacts of transportation plans on Renton's environment and natural resources. Review the latest air and water quality implementation plans from local and state agencies, and update if needed. Intergovernmental Coordination Continue to coordinate Renton's Transportation Element with adjacent jurisdictions' transportation and land use goals, countywide policies, regional land use and transportation plans, and statewide goals outlined in the GMA. Regulations, facilities to be provided, and development actions by regional and other local jurisdictions may change, which could affect the City of Renton. Pursue strategies to address inconsistencies, i.e. through interlocal agreements, and adjust Renton's Transportation Element, as needed. XI-89 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON New ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, 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", TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF REQUIRED PARKING IN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE. WHEREAS, the Community Design Element of the City Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain the integrity of Renton's existing neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Community Design element includes the policy stipulating that buildings should be oriented to the street rather than parking lots; and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan Commercial Neighborhood designation also seeks to encourage employment and commercial opportunities; and WHEREAS, the Commercial Neighborhood zone is mapped in locations adjacent to residential uses and is the smallest scale commercial zone intended to provide incidental goods and services to the adjacent residential area; and WHEREAS, parking in the front of single-family homes and duplexes that have been converted to businesses creates a commercial character in site planning that is inconsistent with the residential character of the remaining structure; and WHEREAS, 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 August 1, 2007, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning ORDINANCE NO. Commission, and said zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and *000 WHEREAS, the City Council held a second public hearing on October 1, 2007 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. Section 4-2-120A 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" is hereby amended to add a new line to the Parking section titled"Required Location for Parking", to read as follows: Businesses located in Single Family Dwellings or Duplexes: Parking may not occur in front of the building and/or in the area between the front lot line and the front building line; parking must occur at the side or rear of the property. Parking may be accommodated off site in accordance with 4-4-080E(2) or at joint use facilities in accordance with 4-4-080E(3). SECTION II. Sections 4-4-080E(2)(a) and (3)(a) of Chapter 4, City-wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2. Off-Site Parking: N""` a. When Permitted: If sufficient parking is not available on the premises of the use, an off-site private parking area may be utilized. Off-site parking may not be utilized by single-family residential use or duplexes with residential use. 3. Joint Use Parking Facilities: a. When Permitted: Joint use of parking facilities may be authorized for those uses that have dissimilar peak-hour demands or when it can be demonstrated that the parking facilities to be shared are underutilized. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. �lrr✓ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1414:11/20/07:ch 3 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON *r.. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, 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" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE RAINIER BUSINESS DISTRICT OVERLAY AND THE DECISION CRITERIA FOR STAND ALONE RESIDENTIAL IN NE 4th, SUNSET, AND PUGET BUSINESS DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use element supports efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use element establishes policies for the Corridor Commercial designation that encourage employment, commercial, and residential opportunities; and Now- WHEREAS, the Commercial Corridor designation is implemented by Business Overlay Districts in Title IV that include additional regulations for site design and residential uses; and WHEREAS, the standards for residential development in the Business Districts require amendments to implement the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the boundary of the Rainier Business District requires an amendment to better implement the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use urban development; and WHEREAS, 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 August 1, 2007, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning ORDINANCE NO. Commission, and said zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and WHEREAS, the City Council held a second public hearing on October 1, 2007 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. Section 4-2-120A 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" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment A. SECTION II. Section 4-3-040J (Rainier Avenue Business District) of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development 4•01 Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment B. SECTION III. Section 4-3-040B(4) Rainier Ave. Business District, of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 4. Rainier Ave. Business District: The area (RMC 4-3-040J) along Rainier Avenue to Airport Way on the north and to the Houser railroad trestle on the south where it abuts the Renton Automall District. (Amd. Ord. 4839, 5-8-2000) 2 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION IV. Section 4-3-040F (Development Standards for Uses Located 440.0, Within the Northeast Fourth Street, Puget Drive, Rainier Avenue, and Sunset Boulevard Business Districts) of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is amended to read as follows: 1. Northeast Fourth, Puget, Rainier, and Sunset Business Districts: a. Maximum Front Yard Setback: Maximum front setback of fifteen feet (15') from the property line. In the NE Fourth Business District, the fifteen-foot (15') setback may be modified to accommodate the Boulevard Improvement Plan. When the fifteen-foot (15') setback is modified, a fifteen-foot (15') landscaped buffer shall Now be required within the enlarged setback. Required parking shall not be located within a modified setback. b. Public Plazas: There shall be provision of a public plaza of no less than one thousand (1,000) square feet with a minimum dimension of twenty feet (20') on one side abutting the sidewalk. The public plaza must be landscaped consistent with RMC 4-4-070, including at minimum street trees, decorative paving, pedestrian- scaled lighting, and seating. These public plazas are to be provided at all intersections in the business districts at the intersections identified: 3 ORDINANCE NO. i. In the NE 4th Business District, any intersection with NE 4th Street. ii. In the Sunset Business District, any intersection with Sunset Boulevard. iii. In the Puget Business District, at the intersection of Benson Road and Puget Drive. iv. In the Rainier Avenue Business District, at the intersection of Rainier Avenue and South 3`d, as well as Rainier Avenue and Airport Way. c. Future Commercial Development Pads: For parcels that are not fully developed, designate appropriate areas for future pad development to occur in later phases. d. Parking: The maximum number of parking spaces r.r� provided for uses within the corridor designation is limited to the minimum requirement in RMC 4-4- 080F10, Number of Required Parking Spaces. Garage structures shall not open directly onto a principal arterial or street. Parking lots shall be oriented to minimize their visual impact on the site. No more than six (6) stalls may be consecutively clustered without an intervening landscaped area a minimum of five feet (5') in width and the length of the stall. e. Pedestrian Connections: 4 ORDINANCE NO. i. Location of Pedestrian Connections: litow (a) A minimum of one pedestrian connection shall be provided to connect the entry or entries of each detached building to the street in addition to sidewalks required in RMC 4-6-060F. (b) A minimum of one pedestrian connection shall be provided from each parking field located on the back and/or side of a building to the entry or entries. (c) A minimum of one pedestrian connection shall be provided from each side of a property or development abutting or adjacent to commercial and/or residential uses. (d) Space for the minimum required pedestrian connections above shall be reserved for future pad development and when the proposed development is abutting or adjacent to an unused parcel. ii. Design Standard for Internal Pedestrian Connections: err 5 ORDINANCE NO. (a) Pedestrian connections shall be ADA accessible and a minimum of five feet (5') in width. (b) At least one of the following materials shall be used to define the walkway: pavers, changes in texture, or changes in the composition of the paving. (c) The entry and exit of the walkway shall be defined with a trellis, special railing, bollards, or other architectural features, as approved by the Reviewing Official. (d) Planting strips required in RMC 4-6- 060F shall be located between the road ' and the required sidewalk. Trees, shrubs, groundcovers, and perennial planting are required components of landscaping. Landscaping is subject to the requirements of RMC 4-4-070. (e) Bollards or other decorative features may be provided at the pedestrian access points between commercial and residential uses. Chains across vehicular 6 ORDINANCE NO. or pedestrian access points are prohibited. f. Additional Standards for Stand Alone Residential Uses: Site design shall include design elements that support a quality mixed use business district. The following minimum standards shall be met; however, the Reviewing Official may require additional elements consistent with site plan review criteria when determined necessary to integrate commercial and residential uses within this district. i. Street Grid: The project shall use a modified street grid system where residential buildings are oriented to a street. A public street grid system within the project shall be provided. No cul-de sacs allowed. Hammerhead turnarounds may only be used if the ends are able to accommodate future connection as part of the modified street grid system. Emergency fire access shall be provided through public streets or private easements connecting to the adjacent commercial or residential area. ii. Site Design: Each unit shall address the public street, private street, or court with a private 7 ORDINANCE NO. residential entry on the front facade of the structure designed to provide individual ground floor connection to the outside. iii. Residential Building Size: A maximum of four (4) consecutively attached units shall be allowed. iv. Minimum Land Area: A minimum of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of land area per dwelling unit is required. Each dwelling shall have a ground-related private useable outdoor space of at least two hundred (200) square feet with a minimum dimension of ten feet (10'). v. Building Design Standards: Urban Design Regulations District B standards shall be required. See RMC 4-3-100. Distinctive building design shall be provided with a superior level of quality for materials, details, and window placement. A consistent visual identity shall be applied to all sides of building that can be seen by the general public. Buildings should integrate pitched roofs, dormer windows, etc., to illustrate residential massing. Variation 8 ORDINANCE NO. of modulation of vertical and horizontal facades Awry of a minimum of six feet (6') depth and twenty feet (20') length is required at a minimum of a forty-foot (40') interval to reduce overall bulk and add interest and quality. Facades may be articulated with bays, terraces, balconies, awnings, stoops, recessed openings, etc. Large "boxes" without articulation are not allowed. No parapet or roofline shall exceed one-half the length of the building facade without a change in elevation. Building entries should be the most prominent feature of the facade, emphasized loupe through the use of materials and architectural detail such as tower, projections, varied roofs, trellis work, pergolas, or covered entryways. vi. Walling and Fencing: Any walling or fencing shall use materials used in the architectural treatment of the dwellings. In addition, where fencing occurs between residential and commercial uses, a minimum of one pedestrian access point shall be required consistent with the standards above. Now 9 ORDINANCE NO. vii. Additional Residential Parking Standards: Parking must be within an enclosed structure located to the rear of the primary structure or in a detached garage with rear access. If this absolutely cannot be accomplished due to physical constraints of the site, then garages shall be designed to have minimum impact on streetscape appearance and function through the use of shared drives, architectural detailing, or facade design. The required guest spaces for attached residential uses may be surface parking. g. Additional Standards for Mixed Use (Within the Same Building) Commercial and Residential Uses: Site design shall include design elements that support a quality mixed use business district. The following minimum standards shall be met; however, the Reviewing Official may require additional elements consistent with site plan review criteria when determined necessary to integrate commercial and residential uses within this district. i. Access: Hammerhead turnarounds may only be used if the ends are able to accommodate future 10 ORDINANCE NO. connection as part of a modified street grid system. Emergency fire access shall be provided through public streets or private easements connecting to the adjacent commercial or residential area. ii. Site Design: Commercial space must be reserved on the ground floor of all mixed used buildings, at a minimum depth of thirty feet (30') along the street frontage on the ground floor in the NE 4th, Sunset, Rainier, and Puget Business District Overlay. Residential uses shall not be located in the ground floor commercial space, except for a residential entry feature linking the residential portion of the development to the street. iii. Building Design Standards: Urban Design Regulations District B standards shall be required. See RMC 4-3-100. Distinctive building design shall be provided with a superior level of quality for materials, details, and window placement. A consistent visual identity shall be applied to all sides of building that can be seen by the general public. Variation Nkomo- 11 ORDINANCE NO. of modulation of vertical and horizontal facades of a minimum of six feet (6') depth and twenty feet (20') length is required at a minimum of a forty-foot (40') interval to reduce overall bulk and add interest and quality. Facades may be articulated with bays, terraces, balconies, awnings, stoops, recessed openings, etc. Large "boxes" without articulation are not allowed. No parapet or roofline shall exceed one-half the length of the building facade without a change in elevation. Building entries should be the most prominent feature of the facade, emphasized svad through the use of materials and architectural detail such as tower, projections, varied roofs, trellis work, pergolas, or covered entryways. iv. Additional Mixed Use Parking Standards: Parking for the residential units must be within an enclosed structure located under the residential portion of the building. The required guest spaces for residential uses may be surface parking. 2. Rainier Avenue Business District: The district shall have the following additional requirements: 12 ORDINANCE NO. a. Access points are to be consolidated to properties. err b. New billboards prohibited. c. Freestanding signs are restricted to monument signs. d. Sidewalk width at the intersections of Rainier Avenue and SW Sunset Boulevard/South Third Street, Rainier Avenue and South Third Place, and Rainier Avenue and South Fourth Place shall be ten feet (10'), minimum. e. Maximum setback of fifteen feet (15'). Building setback for a primary use may exceed the maximum; provided, that a designated area for a future pad development that will conform to the maximum setback is established through a recorded document. Nape f. The number of parking spaces provided for uses within the district is limited to the minimum requirement. SECTION V. Section 4-3-100B of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add a new subsection, to read as follows: 4. This Section shall also apply to residential and mixed-use residential projects located in the Sunset, Northeast Fourth Street, Rainier Avenue, and Puget Drive Business Districts. See RMC 4-3-040. (Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005) err 13 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VI. Section 4-9-030K Special Decision Criteria for Stand Alone Nolie Residential Uses in the NE 4th, Sunset, or Puget Business Districts of Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: K. SPECIAL DECISION CRITERIA FOR STAND ALONE RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE NE 4TH, SUNSET, OR PUGET BUSINESS DISTRICTS: 1. Stand alone residential is not allowed to be located within one hundred fifty feet (150') of an adjacent or abutting arterial street, or in the Rainier Avenue Business District. The arterial streets are to include Sunset Boulevard, Duvall Avenue, Anacortes Avenue, or Union Avenue in the Sunset Business District; NE 4th Street, Union Avenue, or Duvall Avenue in the NE 4th Street Business District; and Puget Drive or South Benson Road in the Puget Drive Business District, as shown on the Business District Maps in RMC 4-3-040. 2. Stand alone residential use may be allowed when it is located a minimum distance of one hundred fifty feet (150') from an adjacent or abutting arterial street, subject to an administrative conditional use permit (see RMC 4-2-080A.18.c). The arterial streets to be included are identified in 4-9-030.K.1. Nftioti 14 ORDINANCE NO. 3. A conditional use permit may be issued when it has been found that: a. A mix of commercial, service, and residential uses exist within a one hundred fifty foot (150') radius of the proposed residential use, and b. Commercial use of the property is not feasible for reasons including, but not limited to: lack of commercial frontage, lack of access, critical areas and/or critical area buffers, or property configuration, and c. Residential use will augment the primary purpose of the commercial arterial zone, and lose d. A pedestrian oriented physical connection between the residential and the commercial uses will be provided, and e. The use as stand alone residential serves as a transition between the commercial and any lower density R-10 and/or R-8 zoned areas in proximity and a visual, pedestrian, and vehicular connection from the residential zoned areas to the commercial arterial zoned areas will be provided, and f. Development standards from RMC 4-3-040F are met unless the applicant opts for a planned urban 15 ORDINANCE NO. development, subject to RMC 4-9-150. Pedestrian connection standards from this section are met without modification. (Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005). SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1416:11/27/07:sr Nirid 16 4-2-120A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN CV CA LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for lots created None, except: 1,200 sq.ft. in the Sunset, after Nov. 10, 2004 NE Fourth, and Puget Business Districts. See maps in RMC 4-3-040. Minimum Lot Width/Depth for lots None None None created after Nov. 10, 2004 LOT COVERAGE Maximum Lot Coverage for 65%of total lot area or 65%of total lot area or 75% if 65%of total lot area or 75%if parking is Buildings 75%if parking is provided parking is provided within the provided within the building or within an within the building or building or within an on-site parking on-site parking garage. within an on-site parking garage. garage. DENSITY(Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum Net Residential None, except in the NE Fourth, Puget, Density9 Rainier, and Sunsetpusiness Districts __ - Deleted:Sunset,NE Fourth,and (see maps in RMC 4-3-040): 10 dwelling Puget units per net acre. Maximum Net Residential 20 dwelling units per net acrd, - Deleted:, Density9 60 dwelling units per acre within the NE [Deleted:except Fourth, Puget, Rainier, and Sunset ,,Business Districts,for.buildings with mixed __ - - Deleted:Sunset,NE Fourth,and l commercial and residential use in the Puget same building The 60 dwelling units per _ Deleted:,it shall be 60 dwelling acre only applies to the parcel and/or . units per acre for parcels that contain the mixed use Deleted:development J building.See maps in RMC 4-3-040. Deleted:. SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard18 10 ft.The minimum 10 ft.The minimum setback may be 10 ft.The minimum setback may be Deleted: setback may be reduced reduced to 0 ft.through the site plan reduced to 0 ft.through the site plan to 0 ft.through the site development review process development review process provided plan development review provided blank walls are not located blank walls are not located within the process provided blank within the reduced setback. reduced setback. walls are not located a within the reduced setback. Maximum Front Yard18 None, except 15 ft. in the Rainier Avenue, Sunset, NE Fourth and Puget Business Districts. See maps and standards in RMC 4-3-040. Minimum Side Yard Along a 10 ft.The minimum 10 ft.The minimum setback may be 10 ft.The minimum setback may be Street18 setback may be reduced reduced to 0 ft.through the site plan reduced to 0 ft.through the site plan to 0 ft.through the site development review process development review process provided plan development review provided blank walls are not located blank walls are not located within the process provided blank within the reduced setback. reduced setback. walls are not located within the reduced setback. Minimum Freeway Frontage 10 ft. landscaped setback 10 ft. landscaped setback from the 10 ft. landscaped setback from the Setback from the property line. property line. property line. Minimum Rear Yard18 None, except 15 ft. if lot None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is abuts or is adjacent to a adjacent to a residential zone, RC, adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, residential zone, RC, R-1, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14,or RM-F. R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14,or RM-F. Minimum Side Yard18 None, except 15 ft. if lot None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is abuts or is adjacent to a adjacent to a residential zone, RC, adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, residential zone, RC, R-1, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14,or RM-F. R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14,or RM-F. Clear Vision Area In no case shall a In no case shall a structure over In no case shall a structure over 42 in. structure over 42 in. in 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear height intrude into the ft.clear vision area defined in vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. 20 ft. clear vision area RMC 4-11-030. defined in RMC 4-11- 030. BUILDING LIMITATIONS Maximum Gross Floor Area of None, except: Any Single Commercial Use on a a. In the NE Fourth Business District: Site 65,000 gross sq.ft. b. In the Puget and Sunset Business Districts: 35,000 sq.ft. Restrictions do not apply to uses subject to net density limitations and grocery stores(see maps in RMC 4-3-040). Maximum Gross Floor Area of None, except: Any Single Office Use on a Site2'9 a. In the NE Fourth Business District: 65,000 gross sq.ft. b. In the Puget and Sunset Business Districts: 35,000 sq.ft. The total gross square footage of these uses shall not exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the site.2'9 These restrictions do not apply to residential uses,which are subject to net density limitations.(See maps in RMC 4- 3-040.) Building Orientation All commercial uses shall N/A except in the NE Fourth, Puget. have their primary Rainier. and Sunset Business Districts entrance and shop ,See RMC 4-3-040 for standards. -I Deleted:Puget,Sunset and NE display window oriented l Fourth Business Districts toward the street 1 Deleted: frontage. LANDSCAPING Minimum On-site Landscape 10 ft., except where reduced through the Width Required Along the Street site plan development review process. Frontage There are additional landscaping standards for pedestrian connections in the NE Fourth, Puget, Rainier, and Sunset Business Districts, See maps and ,_ . - Deleted:Puget,Sunset,and NE standards at RMC 4-3-040. Fourth Business Districts Minimum On-site Landscape 15 ft.wide sight-obscuring landscape Width Along the Street Frontage strip.3'5 Required When a Commercial If the street is a designated principal Lot is Adjacent8 to Property arterial non-s(ght-obscuring landscaping -. - 1 Deleted:, Zoned Residential, RC, R-1, R-4, shall be provided unless otherwise R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM determined by the Reviewing Official through the site plan development review process.There are additional landscaping standards for pedestrian connections in the NE Fourth, Puget, Rainier,and Sunset Business Districts,. See maps and - Deleted:Puget,Sunset,and NE standards at RMC 4-3-040. Fourth Business Districts Minimum Landscape Width 15 ft.wide landscaped visual barrier Required When a Commercial consistent with the definitions in RMC 4- Lot is Abutting'to Property 11-120.A 10 ft. sight-obscuring Zoned Residential, RC, R-1, R-4, landscape strip may be allowed through R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM the site plan development review process. There are additional landscaping standards for pedestrian connections in the NE Fourth, Puget, Rainier, and Sunset Business Districts( See maps and -- Deleted: Puget,Sunset,and NE 1 standards at RMC 4-3-040.3'' Fourth Business Districts HEIGHT Maximum BuildingHeight,14'16 g 50 ft.,except 35 ft.for residential use only except for Public uses with a buildings in the Sunset and NE Fourth "Public Suffix"(P)designation2° Business Districts. See maps in RMC 4-3- 040. Heights may exceed the maximum height with a Conditional Use Permit.10 In no case shall height exceed the limits specified in RMC 4-3-020. Maximum Height for Wireless See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. Communication Facilities SCREENING Outdoor, Loading, Repair, See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. Maintenance,Work, or Storage Areas; Surface-Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof Top Equipment(Except for Telecommunication Equipment) Refuse or Recyclables See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. PARKING General See RMC 10-10-13 and See RMC 10-10-13 and RMC 4-4- See RMC 10-10-13 and RMC 4-4-080. RMC 4-4-080. 080. For the NE Fourth,Sunset, Puget, and Rainier Avenue Business Districts,see RMC 4-3-040. Required Location for Parking NA Residential Uses: Required NA parking shall be located underground or under building(on the first floor of the structure), or in an attached or detached structure. Any additional parking may not be located between the building and public streets unless located within a structured parking garage. Commercial Uses: Parking may not be located between the building and the public street unless located within a structured parking garage. Mixed Use: Joint parking is required subject to RMC 4-4- 080E(3). PEDESTRIAN ACCESS General A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street, in order to provide direct, clear and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and internally from buildings to abutting retail properties. There are additional standards for the Rainier Avenue, NE Fourth, Sunset, and Puget Business Districts. See RMC 4-3- 040 for maps and standards. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100.There are additional standards for the Rainier Avenue Business District at RMC 4-3-040. LOADING DOCKS Location within Site See RMC 4-4-080. See RMC 4-4-080. See RMC 4-4-080. Shall not be permitted on Shall not be permitted on the side of Shall not be permitted on the side of the the side of the lot the lot adjacent to or abutting a lot adjacent to or abutting a residential adjacent to or abutting a residential zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or residential zone, RC, R-1, R-10, R-14, or RM.3 RM.3 R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14,or RM.3 DUMPSTER/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Size and Location of Refuse or See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. Recycling Areas CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050. See RMC 4-3-050. See RMC 4-3-050. DESIGN REGULATIONS General NA See urban design regulations in For the NE Fourth, Sunset, Puget, and RMC 4-3-100. Rainier Avenue Business Districts, see RMC 4-3-040. (4. .. Attachment B _ ____________- --_ CA CA -r-- _-Y z\ ._________ _____________r__ Ii j ' CA J I CA ` \, CA -��� M r. / F li �- ; r ; ? 1 / 4 / *_____ L -� / CA CA i r 1 - 1 I j —i-% -- I— T I/----------7f / \ - / (( // 1 ( , CA j iI 1. I L , 2 / , 1 // r , l� I i L I ../7---- _ \c___ s _ ,,_ - Rainier Business District •<C o Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Ty 'or 4 * ♦ Alex Pietsch,Administrator CE.Feasei -"A„tp. 19 June 2007 CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, 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" BY ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED HOME (RMH) ZONING TO IMPLEMENT THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RLD) LAND USE DESIGNATION. WHEREAS, the City of Renton amended its Comprehensive Plan to allow the Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) zone to implement the Residential Low Density (RLD) land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, changes in the Renton Municipal Code are needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan policy change; and Nose WHEREAS, 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 September 20, 2006, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning text amendment 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. Section 4-2-010D of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of ORDINANCE NO. General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown on '44•00 Attachment 'A'. SECTION II. Section 4-2-020 F 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" is hereby amended to read as follows: The Residential Manufactured Home Park Zone (RMH) is established to promote development that is single family in character and developed to offer a choice in land tenancy. Standards provide for safe and high-quality manufactured home neighborhoods. It is intended to implement the Low Density, Single Family, and Medium Density Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. The RMH Zone is intended to protect established manufactured home parks and to expand the variety of affordable housing types available within the City. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statement, objectives and policy direction established in the Residential Low Density land use designation, Objective LU-DD through LU-EE, Policies LU-133 through LU-146, Residential Single Family land use designation, Objective LU-FF, Policies LU-147 through LU-156, or the Residential Medium Density land use designation, Objective LU- GG through LU-II, Policies LU-157 through LU-181 and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. 2 ORDINANCE NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1417:11/16/07:ch 4�rr 3 ATTACHMENT A D. ZONES IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Designations are implementing by certain zones: Comprehensive Plan Designation Implementing Zones Residential Low Density(RLD) Resource Conservation (RC) Residential— 1 DU/AC (R-1) Residential—4 DU/AC (R-4) Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) Residential Single Family (RS) Residential— 8 DU/AC (R-8) Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) Residential Medium Density(RMD) Residential— 10 DU/AC (R-10) Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) Residential— 14 DU/AC (R-14) Residential Multi-Family(RM) Residential Multi-Family(RM-V, RM-I, RM-F) Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) Center Downtown (CD) Residential Multi-Family(RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Traditional (RM- T) Urban Center North (UC-N) Urban Center—North 1 (UC-N1) Urban Center—North 2 (UC-N2) Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Center Village (CV) Residential— 14 DU/AC (R-14) Residential Multi-Family(RM-F) Residential Multi-Family Urban (RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Traditional (RM- T) Center Village (CV) Commercial Corridor(CC) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) Light Industrial (IL) Employment Area Industrial (EAI) Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (IM) Heavy Industrial (11-1) Employment Area Valley (EAV) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (IM) Heavy Industrial (IH) Resource Conservation (RC) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, 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", CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (RAINIER AVENUE) FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 DU/AC (R-10) TO COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA) ZONING, FILE NO. LUA-06-161 (CPA 2007-M-02). WHEREAS, under Section 4-2-020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "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 in Attachments A and B, has heretofore been zoned as Commercial Arterial (CA); and Nosy WHEREAS, the property owner initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said properties, and the City expanded the area to an additional four properties. 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 August 1, 2007, 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: ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Commercial Arterial as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the Zoning District Map, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Attachments "A" and "B" and attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Rainier Avenue). SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. ,44101 Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1415:11/20/07:ch r.rr� 2 I ( , _ TObII1 s 0r/ 1 c t'�o r o c Ci 1 i L-� wirsiwvor 1i ) rn nd 0 x e 0 Q C Ln , d Q - -- ----- - - 79 -, - - / '% � I ' - - Rainier Ave2007-M- 2) Zoning Map 0 200 400 war( 0 Zoning Change from R-10 Residential 10 du/ac GtiCY 0�,{ Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning to CA Commercial Arterial 1 n_ 2001 ♦�5�� , Alex Pietsch,Administrator .. DCV Technical Services 'NTO September 18,2007 RAINIER AVE S 2007-M-02 REZONE FROM R-10 TO CA LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter and of Government Lot 4 in Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., the City of Renton, King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the westerly margin of the D.C. Mitchell County Road (Rainier Ave S) with the northerly margin of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipe Line right of way; Thence North 02° 18' 49" East, a distance of 200.02 feet along said westerly margin; Thence North 89° 51' 11" West, a distance of 2.97 feet, to the westerly right of way margin of State Highway No. 2 (Rainier Ave S); Thence continuing North 89° 51' 11" West, parallel with said Pipe Line right of way, a distance of 156.11 feet; Thence North 06° 32' 49" East, a distance of 50.32 feet; Thence North 89° 51' 11" West, a distance of 143.50 feet, to the easterly right of way margin of Hardie Ave SW (91st Ave S) and the True Point of Beginning; Thence northerly along said easterly right of way margin, to an intersection with the southerly right of way line of a 25 feet wide County Road (SW Victoria St); Thence easterly along said southerly right of way line, a distance of 103 feet; Thence southerly, perpendicular to said southerly right of way line, a distance of 165.59 feet, to an intersection with a line 406 feet north of and parallel with said northerly margin of said Pipe Line right of way; Thence North 89° 51' 11" West along said line 406 feet north of and parallel with said northerly margin, to the Northwest corner of that Tract of land conveyed by Deed recorded under Rec. No. 6469261; Thence South 06° 32' 49" West, a distance of 157.14; Thence North 89° 51' 11" West, a distance of 128.40, to the True Point of Beginning. 1 of 1 11/14/2007 4:49 PM tr CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, 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", CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (VIRTU PROPERTY SOUTH OF SUNSET BOULEVARD) FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RMF) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 10 DU/AC (R-10) ZONING, FILE NO. LUA-06-167 (CPA 2007-M-05). WHEREAS, under Section 4-2-020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "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 in Attachments A Nair and B has heretofore been zoned as Residential Multi-Family (RM-F); and WHEREAS, the property owner 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 August 1, 2007, 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: ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby ,41201 rezoned to Residential 10 du/ac as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the Zoning District Map, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Attachments "A" and "B" and attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Virtu Property south of Sunset Boulevard). SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1420:11/27/07:sr r.rr� 2 I . i ,W i e 7; - 'I 1. L U I I - 1 - --I -- - r-' _ 1 Q I •4, I - . I I `---1''---I — %I 5,130th a I � k I , I I \. I' s,.. S,tangston Rd a co L,1„4.,',,,, — - _21-ii-.----F-\ --- — -LL -- I -. n, 5e4 n. rz 1 h I [---i — I _��t, ..,n x :._ S 132nd StTz - � -� & I i _ \ ,..,,,,,r, ,,•.n, _—. „-s" r _ I. H ! L---, I I I I I I I I -r_ r I S I ---- - - � 'i,_:., .. I I I I T--r- _ 134 • I — I I I I A I p�rfh=sl _ • — — I I I--III I I-'I I---I-, - -rl,-,\- rI -• S-13oth;St ._' \^I I I --7- -_. •S 13 �� I I HII g���ays a I I 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I „ /��—� z. I I I I I ��. ���� _7 ,j \\\ I 'T q; I I I I I I I I I °l a.i, , j— -`e c'�� / I °.H — $$� gyp; ti -. \o Lid r • \ .3 / \ sof. \ \\ 1 I TIrL 4- \ \\ \ / \r i �-�. I l \ �` �\i \ i / /,, it ‘...i, I . 1 r SW 7th Stir.. 0 '\< ;!Oakesy I' \ , y i Vi aieq z I l tes _ — I l "' I Fd_\ w J\y "< \ -\ ,.� °' ‘i ;-. /A/ ��Y 0Economic Development, USunset Blvd Rezone from RM-F to R-10 �_ Neighborhoods and Attachment A ,p, � Strategic PLanning Alex Pietsch,Administrator A.Johnson,Planning Technician N Legend November 26,2007ICA) `//�/ Rezone from RM-F to R-10 -40,,,,,✓ 0 300 600 1,200 Feet 1:9,600 Produced by City of Renton(c)2007,the City of Renton all File Name H.\EDNSP\GIS_prolects\rezones\mxds\ rights reserved.No warranties of any sort.including but not rezone from_RMF_to_P.10.mxd l inited to accuracy,fitness or merchantability,accompany this product ATTACHMENT B SUNSET BLVD/VIRTU 2007-M-05 REZONE FROM RMF TO R-10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the easterly 716.8 feet of the northerly 1510.74 feet of the Donation Land Claim of C.E. Brownell, designated as Claim No. 41, said Land Claim being a portion of Sections 13 and 14, both in Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Donation Land Claim with the South line of said northerly 1510.74 feet thereof; THENCE North 88° 34' 18" West, a distance of 426.25 feet along said South line; THENCE North 68° 00' 36" East, a distance of 464.60 feet, to a point on the East line of said Donation Land Claim, said point also being 184.65 feet north of said intersection; THENCE South 01° 27'12" East, a distance of 184.65 feet along said East line, to the Point of Beginning. Situate in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. 1 of 1 11/14/2007 4:22 PM CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, 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", CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (QIP PROPERTY SOUTH OF SUNSET BOULEVARD) FROM INDUSTRIAL- HEAVY (I-H) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 10 DU/AC (R-10) ZONING, FILE NO. LUA-06-167 (CPA 2007-M-05). WHEREAS, under Section 4-2-020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "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 in Attachments A and B has heretofore been zoned as Industrial-Heavy (I-H); and WHEREAS, the property owner 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 August 1, 2007, 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: ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby .4101 rezoned to Residential 10 du/ac as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the Zoning District Map, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Attachments "A" and "B" and attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (QIP Property south of Sunset Boulevard). SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1418:11/20/07:ch 2 C r — t ; I ::. . I i l:l /` - �2 Pi - Li–� I J ,'_ -- 1-::: -1-i_� i I . – �_.... --- y 1 f l l 'T Ll� ii-;- 7—LI--r I r —I I _� T�I 1 f T1 L___ Q� 411,"`i-,, � I i \I I ";, I ,s�:..,: ,A-----Ir- �� Jnr �A�.� r4,-,A S;130th'•-7:•;:i1;.— t.<��- .���;.� v _f S Langston:Rd; ;> j r w` i I y .: ",s — J 1 1% r -I l— — r 1``' S:132ndSttVk. 4 , :;% .fi,' Sm1331Td_St,� -M.: ,s c,.;w.,.. :a4,;�,:`t`,• �---,_!---1 I -, I - ---- I �tl— I I , — I I i l __. I I I l '' _/ –, : . F; rJ �1`�I I I I I I I I I ��- 'S3 SI I r 7--1 - - `/ ��zE . w I I rill I 1- 4fh' t I I �. I I � IIj �I _ - tea ' r 'I. �..'IS•135thIStl,w_I _khll '. �`��milli I �_ `94:7:11 I �� '9I. III ISI I I I I 1 1-1-1 �-i-!i I I I -t /--- \.,i'_ Oli,may: % \` ''''*..V; 41Viiir,,,i.r!! ,,,4 V . 4 __ __ :.:1,0, \t.... //,, / / ,./, ... ./ . ,_ „... ,. \,,,, ., . , , , =' ,":',11 • \'\\\ % I _.- .—-- ir, 'II 'I //; �110 I -`'� ` J —1 \ \ \ i )/ \ \ ' `\ i , % r \,ji ,''` 'S'143�dS€� \ _ ——- - ; ;-- _ --------—---' a i 1 � .--.,. ,— ''S %l::.:, .• i'. Qtv mak{' [ (' 5=144_th- , 2 i / R St 3n \ � i ( ,: SW 7th,3t 1 i , \o —— 3 Oakesy \ a/ % i y, e A --_1_ I = �I v.e-S I1 .;;;,:;" \\ \ / I �\ i Q I Sunset Blvd Rezone from I-H to R-10 �,SY 0 Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Attachment A -141117. - Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch,Administrator A.Johnson,Planning Technician N Legend November 26,2007 (1) `/� Rezone from I-H to R-10 %ow, 0 300 600 1,200 Feet 1:9,600 Produced by City of Renton(c)2007,the City of Renton File Name:H:\EDNSP\GISprolects\rezones\mads\ all rights reserved.No warranties of any sort,including but not rezone_from_IH_to_R10.mxd limited to accuracy,fitness or merchantability,accompany this product ATTACHMENT B SUNSET BLVD/QIP 2007-M-05 REZONE FROM I-H TO R-10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1, 2, 3 and the East 9.70 feet of Lot 4, all in Junction Addition, as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 75, Records of King County, Washington, lying northerly of the southerly right of way margin of the former Beacon Coal Mine Road, as vacated by King County Commissioners Journal, Volume 29, page 3. All situate in the Southwest quarter, Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ,400 1 of 1 09/20/2007 1:35 PM CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Ni..r, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, 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", CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (PARK AVENUE NORTH) FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 DU/AC (R-10) TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) ZONING, FILE NO. LUA-06-160 (CPA 2007-M-01). WHEREAS, under Section 4-2-020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as "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 in Attachments A & B, has heretofore been zoned as Commercial Neighborhood (CN); and WHEREAS, the property owner initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said properties, and the City expanded the area to an additional six properties. 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 August 1, 2007, 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: ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Commercial Neighborhood as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the Zoning District Map, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Attachments "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Park Avenue North). SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1413:11/20/07:ch NegiO 2 CD , \ / t - S : Q / / / 0 _ CD> CD ,iii Q Q L rm,m1 > > (116 <c 2 1 �iv 1,`.ASef? �\J � $r wr 0 0 ,� ,+FUFi�Y cll —0 U Jrq, i 3 CD 11 > >, \ 3rd St , r —________— 1 0-- -1j A U _ N -0- N Park Ave (2007-M-01) Zoning - Change Zoning Designation from 0 200 400 R-10 Residential 10 du/ac to Fasommimsosssupgmawsmasaamm § Y O Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning CN Commercial Neighborhood f■` + ,r6+,-1,Z Pietsch,Administrator 1"= 200' `�� Technical Services �NT�$ )lber 18,2007 1 PARK AVENUE N 2007-M-01 REZONE FROM R-10 TO CN LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 6 through 9, Block 6, and Lots 7 through 9, Block 7, all in Renton Farm Plat, as recorded in Volume 10, Page 97, records of King County, Washington. Situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. TOGETHER WITH that portion of Park Ave N lying between Lots 7 through 9 of Blocks 6 and 7 in said Renton Farm Plat. AND that portion of Park Ave N lying southerly of the above described portion of said Park Ave N, easterly of the centerline of said Park Ave N and northerly of the easterly extension of the south line of said Lot 6, Block 6. AND that portion of the Alley between said Park Ave N and Pelly Ave N lying southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of said Lot 9, Block 6, northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 6, Block 6 and easterly of the centerline thereof. 1 of 1 09/20/2007 11:22 AM