The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil 11/27/2006 . . AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL *REVISED* REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Monday, 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - V'ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Extension.of moratorium on sewer service availability to new subdivisions in the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area for an additional six months 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 5. 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 address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 6. 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 Councilinember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/13/2006. Council concur. b. Mayor Keolker reappoints Kristi Hand, 517 Smithers Ave.N.,Renton 98057; Marie McPeak, 409 Jefferson Ave. NE,Renton,98056; Evelyn Reingeld,11, ,SW Sunset Blvd.,L-56,Renton, 98057. 1eanor 418 Wells Ave i 7,each to the Municipal Arts • • 0. a to... . term expiring I21 - concur. c. AdministudiVe,Judicial and Legal Services Dep. recommends approval of a resolution .regarding the Preserve Our Plateau annexation election requesting that King County produce a voter's pamphlet,authorizing election steps, and transmitting the ballot title. Council concur. (See 9.b. for resolution.) d. Community Services Department recommends approval of the proposed 2007 Henry Moses Aquatic Center fee schedule. Refer to Committee of the Whole. e. Community Services Department recommends approval of the proposed 2007 facility and recreation fees and rates schedule. Refer to Committee of the Whole. 1. Development SerVices Division recommends adoption of the proposed Planned Action ordinance for Sub-district 1-B of the Boeing Renton Plant property; approximately 51 acres generally bounded by Logan Ave.N.,Garden Ave.N.,N. 8th St.,and N. 6th St. Refer to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on 12/11/2006. g. Development Services Division recommends approval of the request to remove restrictive covenants imposed on properties located on Union Ave. NE between Sunset Blvd. NE and NE 12th St. (Dalpay Properties). Refer to Planning aro Development Committee. h. Development Services Division recommends approval of the Windstone II Short Plat as a Final Plat;nine single-family lots and one tract on 3.6 acres located north of NE 17th St. at Mt.Baker Ave.NE(FP-04-124). Council concur. (See 9.c. for resolution.) i. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends Los' adoption of the proposed 2007 Legislative Priorities. Refer to Committee of the Whole. j. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends a public hearing be set on 12/11/2006 to consider the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation and associated zoning; 60.5 acres located at 130th Ave. SE and Maple Valley Hwy. Council concur. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) ti 7. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Jack Alhadeff,President,JDA Group,LLC, 95 S. Tobin St., Ste. 201,Renton, 98055, requesting reimbursement in the amount of$53,750 for oversizing the water line at NW 6th St. for 'the Sixth Street Short Plat subdivision at the City's request(UC-06-003). Refer to Utilities Noe Committee. 8. 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 of the Whole: 2007 Water, Wastewater,and Surface Water Utility Rates* b. Finance Committee: Vouchers; Pam Curley Reconnection Fee 9. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions: a. Establishing facts,extending a moratorium on sewer availability for new subdivisions within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area, and establishing a termination date(see 3.) b. Authorizing a voter's pamphlet for the.2/6/2007 Preserve Our Plateau annexation election(see 6.c.) c. Approving the Windstone II Final Plat(see 6.h.) * Ordinances for first reading and advancement to second and final reading: a. 2006 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan(Council approved 11/20/2006) c. Carr Road properties rezone from R-8 and R-10 to R-14{Council approved 11/20/2006) d. Springbrook Associates property rezone from R-10 to CO(Council approved 11/20/2006) kisov e. Puget Colony Homes property rezone from R-8 to R=4(Council approved 11/20/2006) k. Establishing CA zoning classification of former Aqua Barn property within the City's Potential Annexation Area(Council approved 11/20/2006) I. Establishing R-14 zoning classification of former Aqua Barn property within the City's Potential Annexation Area(Council approved 11/20/2006) m. Upper Kennydale properties rezone from R-8 to R-4(Council approved 11/20/2006) n. Water, Wastewater and Surface Water rate increases(see 8.a.) Ordinances jfor send and final reading: a. Approving the Hudson Annexation(1st reading 11/20/2006) b. Estabh l R:-S zoning for 5.83 acres of the Hudson annexation(1st reading 11/20/2006) c.- Establishing R-10 zoning for 6.60 acres of the Hudson Annexation(1st reading 11/20/2006 d. 2006 Budget amendment to offset increased Community Services Department overtime&labor costs(1st reading 11/20/2006) e. Public works construction permit fees increase(1st reading 11/20/2006) f. Wireless communication facilities in residential zones City Code amendment(1st reading 11/20/2006) 10. NEW BUSINESS(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENT 12. ADJOURNMENT (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. 2007 Budget Presentations and Deliberations • 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 I 1:00 AM&9:00 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9:00 AM&7:00 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1:00 PM&9:00 PM ‘10101 ‘rie RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November 27, 2006 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 RANDY CORMAN, Council President; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON; COUNCILMEMBERS DENIS LAW; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILWOMAN TERRI BRIERE. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER, Mayor; ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; ATTENDANCE BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; CHIEF I. DAVID DANIELS, Fire Department; CHIEF KEVIN MILOSEVICH, DEPUTY CHIEF TIM TROXEL, and COMMANDER DAVID LEIBMAN, Police Department. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Utility: Sewer Moratorium in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing East Renton Plateau PAA to consider extending the moratorium on sewer availabilities for new subdivisions within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area(PAA) for an additional six months. The current moratorium expires 12/5/2006. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL 12/4/2006. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Assistant CAO Marty Wine reviewed a written administrative report REPORT summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2006 and beyond. Items noted included: * Following the official Clam Lights lighting event on December 1 at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, watch for the Rainier Yacht Club's "Parade of Boats," with each lighted boat decorated in the spirit of the season. * The annual K9 Candy Cane 5K Fun Run and Walk will be held on Sunday, December 3. AUDIENCE COMMENT Kirk Moore, 1901 Harrington Circle NE, Renton, 98056, identifying himself as Citizen Comment: Moore- the chair of the Highlands Zoning Task Force, expressed concern that some 2006 Comprehensive Plan citizens are questioning the independency of the task force in the matter of the Amendments, Highlands task force's report and recommendations regarding the Highlands area zoning. Zoning Task Force Mr. Moore stressed that the task force worked hard on behalf of the residents of the Highlands, City staff, and City Council to produce reasonable and expedient policies for growth and protection in the Highlands. On behalf of the City, Mayor Keolker expressed her appreciation for the work of the task force. Citizen Comment: Petersen- Inez Petersen, PO Box 1295, Renton, 98057, spoke about the multiple appeals 2006 Comprehensive Plan that were filed related to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments. She Amendments, Appeals pointed out that what is proposed for one neighborhood affects all neighborhoods, specifically in regards to high density. Ms. Petersen stated that she supports the work of the Highlands Zoning Task Force, but does not support what the City did with the work of the task force. She indicated that the public November 27, 2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 415 hearing process pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan amendments was invalid, and voiced her support for the appeals that were filed concerning environmental issues and the public hearing process. Ms. Petersen emphasized that citizens should not be forced to spend their money on legal services in order to do what the City should already be doing in regards to these matters. 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 11/13/2006. Council concur. 11/13/2006 Appointment: Municipal Arts Mayor Keolker reappointed Kristi Hand, 517 Smithers Ave.N., Renton, 98057; Commission Marie McPeak,409 Jefferson Ave. NE, Renton, 98056; Evelyn Reingold, 833 SW Sunset Blvd., L-56, Renton, 98057; and Eleanor Simpson,418 Wells Ave. N., Renton, 98057, each to the Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term expiring 12/31/2009. Council concur. Annexation: Preserve Our Administrative,Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended approval Plateau, SE 128th St of a resolution regarding the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation election requesting that King County produce a voter's pamphlet, authorizing election steps,and transmitting the ballot title. Council concur. (See page 416 for resolution.) Community Services: Henry Community Services Department recommended approval of the proposed 2007 Moses Aquatic Center Fees Henry Moses Aquatic Center fee schedule. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Community Services: Facility Community Services Department recommended approval of the proposed 2007 and Recreation Fees & Rates facility and recreation fees and rates schedule related to athletic field fees, Carco Theatre rental rates, Community Center rental rates, and park picnic shelter fees. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Development Services: Boeing Development Services Department recommended adoption of an ordinance Subdistrict 1B Planned Action regarding the Planned Action for Subdistrict 1B of the Boeing Renton Plant property; approximately 51 acres bounded by Logan Ave. N., Garden Ave. N., N. 8th St., and N. 6th St. Refer to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on 12/11/2006. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended approval to remove restrictive Removal of Restrictive covenants imposed in 1984 (R-83-033) on the Dalpay properties located on Covenants on Dalpay Union Ave. NE between NE 12th St. and Sunset Blvd. NE, as the covenants are Properties,Union Ave NE now outdated and in conflict with the goals of the current Comprehensive Plan. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Plat: Windstone II, Mt Baker Development Services Division recommended approval of the Windstone II Ave NE, FP-04-124 Short Plat as a Final Plat; nine single-family lots and one tract on 3.6 acres located north of NE 17th St. at Mt. Baker Ave. NE. Council concur. (See page 417 for resolution.) Council: 2007 Legislative Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Priorities recommended adoption of the proposed 2007 legislative priorities. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Annexation: Maplewood Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Addition, Maple Valley Hwy recommended a public hearing be set on 12/11/2006 to consider the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation and associated zoning; 60.5 acres located at 130th Ave. SE and Maple Valley Hwy. Council concur. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. November 27, 2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 416 CORRESPONDENCE A letter was read from Jack Alhadeff, JDA Group LLC President, 95 S. Tobin Citizen Comment: JDA Group St., Suite 201, Renton, 98055, requesting reimbursement in the amount of - Oversizing Reimbursement $53,750 for oversizing the water main at NW 6th St. for the Sixth Street Short for Water Main for Sixth Street Plat at the City's request. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, Short Plat COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance Committee Claim Vouchers 254370 - 254892 and one wire transfer totaling $3,400,181.33; Finance: Vouchers and approval of Payroll Vouchers 66588 - 66746, one wire transfer, and 637 direct deposits totaling $2,008,809.35. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Waiver of Water- Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding the Pam Curley Related Charge, Curley request related to a reconnection fee. The Committee met to consider the request by Pam Curley to waive a water-related charge. After a complete review of the matter, the Committee believed that the City's current policy and procedures were followed appropriately. Therefore,the Committee recommended that no further action be taken on this matter at this time. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Committee of the Whole Council President Corman presented a Committee of the Whole report Utility: 2007 Rates regarding the 2007 water, wastewater, and surface water utility rates. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following utility rate changes effective 1/1/2007: 1. A 5 percent increase in water utility rates; 2. A 5 percent increase in wastewater utility rates; 3. A 3 percent increase in surface water utility rates; 4. A monthly King County rate adjustment charge of 56 cents per residential account, and 56 cents per 750 cubic feet of water use for multi-family, commercial, and industrial accounts; and 5. A collection of the King County wastewater treatment charge of$27.95 per residential customer equivalent per month. The Committee referred the subject of utility rates to the Committee of the Whole, to be reviewed in early 2007. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first and second reading and adoption. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 418 for ordinance.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3843 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to take those Annexation: Preserve Our actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters, including the Plateau, SE 128th St preparation of information for the voter's pamphlet, for the special election to be held on 2/6/2007 regarding the annexation of approximately 1,475 acres of contiguous unincorporated territory within Renton's East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area, also known as the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation November 27,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 417 area. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3844 A resolution was read approving the Windstone II Final Plat; approximately 3.6 Plat: Windstone II, Mt Baker acres located in the vicinity of NE 17th St. and Mt.Baker Ave. NE. MOVED Ave NE, FP-04-124 BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and advanced for second and final reading: Comprehensive Plan: 2006 An ordinance was read adopting the 2006 amendments to the City's 2004 Amendments Comprehensive Plan, maps and data in conjunction therewith. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5228 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Comprehensive Plan: 2006 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Amendments ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Rezone: Can Rd Properties, R- An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Can Rd. 8 & R-10 to R-14 properties from R-8 (Residential -eight dwelling units per acre)and R-10 (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre)to R-14 (Residential- fourteen dwelling units per acre)zoning; LUA-05-163, CPA 2006-M-3. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5229 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Rezone: Carr Rd Properties, R- MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT 8 &R-10 to R-14 THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Rezone: Springbrook An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Springbrook Associates, S 37th St, R-10 to Associates property from R-10 (Residential - ten dwelling units per acre)to CO CO (Commercial Office) zoning; LUA-05-158, CPA-2006-M-4. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5230 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Rezone: Springbrook MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT Associates, S 37th St, R-10 to THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. CO Rezone: Puget Colony Homes, An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the Puget Colony NE 2nd St, R-8 to R-4 Homes property from R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per acre)to R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-06-120, CPA 2006-M- 5. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5231 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Rezone: Puget Colony Homes, MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT NE 2nd St, R-8 to R-4 THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Comprehensive Plan: 2006 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of the former Aqua Amendments, CA Zone for Barn property within the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area as CA Aqua Barn Property, Maple (Commercial Arterial)zoning; CPA 2006-M-7. MOVED BY CLAWSON, Valley Hwy SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. November 27,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 418 Ordinance#5232 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Comprehensive Plan: 2006 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Amendments, CA Zone for THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Aqua Barn Property, Maple Valley Hwy Comprehensive Plan: 2006 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of the former Aqua Amendments, R-14 Zone for Barn property within the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area as R-14 Aqua Barn Property, Maple (Residential - 14 dwelling units per acre) zoning; CPA 2006-M-7. MOVED BY Valley Hwy CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5233 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Comprehensive Plan: 2006 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Amendments, R-14 Zone for THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Aqua Barn Property, Maple Valley Hwy Rezone: Upper Kennydale, An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of the upper Jones Ave NE, R-8 to R-4 Kennydale area properties from R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per acre) to R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA-06-122, CPA 2006-M-8). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5234 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Rezone: Upper Kennydale, MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT Jones Ave NE, R-8 to R-4 THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Utility: 2007 Rates An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Storm and Surface Water Drainage; Chapter 4, Water; and Chapter 5, Sewers; of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation)of City Code by increasing utility rates. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5235 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Utility: 2007 Rates MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: FOUR AYES: CORMAN, NELSON, CLAWSON, LAW; TWO NAYS: PALMER, PERSSON. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5236 An ordinance was read annexing approximately 14.63 acres of property Annexation: Hudson, Benson generally located west, south, and east of the existing City of Renton boundaries Rd S & S 168th St defined by a peninsula of land immediately east of 108th Ave. SE, and south of SE 168th St. (Hudson). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5237 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification for approximately Annexation: Hudson, R-8 5.83 acres, located in two sections, the smallest some 2.02 acres, on the south Zoning side of SE 168th St. in the easternmost part of the annexation, and the largest, some 3.81 acres, on the west side of 108th Ave. SE, in the northernmost portion of the annexation site; annexed within the City of Renton from R-18 (Urban Residential - 18 dwelling units per acre, King County zoning), R-12 (Urban Residential - 12 dwelling units per acre, King County zoning) and R-8 (Urban November 27,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 419 Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre, King County zoning)to R-8 (Residential - 8 dwelling units per net acre, Renton zoning); Hudson. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5238 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification for approximately Annexation: Hudson, R-10 6.6 acres, located in two sections, the smallest some 1.9 acres, on the western Zoning side of 108th Ave. SE, and the largest, some 4.7 acres, on the east side of 108th Ave. SE, both south of SE 168th St., if extended; annexed within the City of Renton from R-18 (Urban Residential - 18 dwelling units per acre, King County zoning), R-12 (Urban Residential - 12 dwelling units per acre, King County zoning) and R-8 (Urban Residential- 8 dwelling units per acre, King County zoning) to R-10 (Residential - 10 dwelling units per net acre, Renton zoning); Hudson. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5239 An ordinance was read amending the 2006 Budget to authorize $35,000 from Community Services: Park increased revenues to offset increased overtime and labor costs due to weather Fund Budget Increase, Staffing related crowd control and the extended Sockeye season. MOVED BY LAW, Expenses SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5240 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1,Administration and Enforcement, Utility: Public Works of Title IV (Development Regulations)of City Code by increasing public works Construction Permit Fees construction permit fees. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5241 An ordinance was read amending Chapters 2,4, and 11 of Title IV Development Services: (Development Regulations) of City Code by permitting wireless communication Wireless Communication facilities within public rights-of-way in residential areas and to incorporate three Facilities in Residential Zones pre-existing administrative determinations that clarify the wireless regulations. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CANCEL Council: Budget Workshop THE BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR 11/29/2006. CARRIED. Cancellation Council: Committee on Council President-Elect Nelson announced that the Committee on Committees Committees will be comprised of herself and Councilmembers Law and Corman. AUDIENCE COMMENT John Cowan, 1830 NE 24th St., Renton, 98056, speaking on the subject of the Citizen Comment: Cowan- rezone of the upper Kennydale area, indicated that he attended the related public 2006 Comprehensive Plan hearings and addressed the Planning Commission on the matter. He explained Amendments, Upper that he owns a 0.5 acre property in the area, which lacks wetlands, and is • Kennydale Area adjacently located to four higher density developments. He questioned why the Planning Commission's recommendation not to rezone the area was reversed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Pointing out that the members of the Planning Commission are volunteers, Mr. Cowan expressed concern that their recommendations do not carry much weight and can be arbitrarily reversed. Stating that the Planning Commission is an advisory board, Mayor Keolker explained that the decision authority rests with the City Council who can choose to accept or reject recommendations from the Planning Commission or any other board and commission. November 27,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 420 Mr. Cowan expressed concern about the process,pointing out that a Council sub-committee rejected the Commission's recommendation, and that tonight, first and second reading of the ordinance was held. Stating that he is vice chair of the Planning and Development Committee, Councilman Clawson emphasized that the recommendations of the Planning Commission are given a lot of weight. He reviewed the reasons why the Committee recommended that the upper Kennydale area be downzoned from R- 8 to R-4 zoning, including the area's hydrology and the fact that the area is the headwaters of Kennydale Creek. Mr. Clawson noted the compelling arguments on both sides of the matter, saying that the decision was a difficult one for him to make. Pointing out that his property is located outside of the wetland area, Mr. Cowan indicated that he wants to build houses on the property. He explained that as he an ordinary citizen and not an attorney, he was unaware of how the process worked and is now unable to file an appeal. Councilwoman Palmer stated that she is a member of the Planning and Development Committee, and indicated that the Committee reviewed all of the information, including the number of people for and against the matter. Pointing out that she was very sensitive to people's opinions on the issue, Ms. Palmer emphasized that the decision was not an easy one to make. Discussion ensued regarding the options available to Mr. Cowan now that the ordinance has been adopted. Mayor Keolker advised that he review the matter with Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch. Citizen Comment: Petersen- Inez Somerville Petersen, PO Box 1295, Renton, 98057, claimed that since the 2006 Comprehensive Plan public hearings held on November 13 and September 20 regarding the 2006 Amendments Comprehensive Plan amendments are invalid due to lack of due process,the ordinances adopted this evening are also invalid. Noting that a number of appeals were filed related to the amendments, Ms. Petersen stated that she wants the community to grow but in a legal way. She displayed photographs of houses with small yards, and questioned whether this is the kind of housing Renton families with children would want. Councilwoman Palmer indicated that what weighed heavy in her mind in the making of her decision regarding the downzone of the upper Kennydale area were the small "cookie cutter" lots. She noted the importance of having the ability to choose bigger lots. Citizen Comment: Moore- Kirk Moore, 1901 Harrington Circle NE, Renton, 98056, said public hearing 2006 Comprehensive Plan notices can be short, and he pointed out that it is up to citizens to be active in Amendments, Appeals government. Mr. Moore expressed disappointment with the appeals that were filed related to the Comprehensive Plan amendments. He indicated that the Highlands Zoning Task Force's recommended plan for the Highlands area contained significant differences from the original plan. Mr. Moore suggested that the City review the appeal structure and raise the appeal fee from$75 to $500. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:07 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann,November 27, 2006 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 27, 2006 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES MON., 12/04 2007 Council Committee Assignments (Nelson) 3:30 p.m. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 12/04 2007 Budget Deliberations; (Corman) 4:30 p.m. 2007 Legislative Priorities COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 12/04 2006 Year-End Budget Amendment (Persson) 4 p.m. Ordinance PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (Briere) PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) (Palmer) UTILITIES (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. ' , O� ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND r%• ® + LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT "e*P. Nry0 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 27, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: GENERAL INFORMATION • Kick off your holiday season on Friday, December 1st, with the 13th Annual Clam Lights event at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Join family and friends for an evening of entertainment, holiday spirit, and stunning visual effects. Co-sponsored by Ivar's, Inc., and the City of Renton, this free event draws thousands of spectators each year. Entertainment will begin at 6:30 p.m., followed by the official lighting at 7:20 p.m., when the park will be transformed into a winter wonderland. Marvel at the beautiful array of lighting on the buildings, trees, shrubbery, and walkways nightly through January 1st. • Following the official Clam Lights lighting on December 1st, watch for the Rainier Yacht Club's popular"Parade of Boats" at 7:30 p.m., with each lighted boat decked out in the spirit of the season. • Continue in the holiday spirit at the official Tree Lighting event at the Piazza Park(corner of South 3rd Street and Burnett Avenue South) on Saturday, December 2nd, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. This wonderful community event in downtown Renton is sponsored by Piazza Renton and the City of Renton, and features a line-up of local musicians and singers, a visit from Santa, and refreshments. Be there for all the fun, and remember to bring your camera for photos with Santa. Non-perishable food donations will be accepted for the Salvation Army Food Bank. Call 425.917.0173 or 425.228.1977 for more information. • The Rainier Yacht Club's lighted boat parade will make an encore appearance at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park at 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, December 2nd. • Featuring entertainment by a local northwest choir, the Argosy Christmas Ship will be just off the shores of Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park from 6:00 to 6:20 p.m. Sunday, December 3rd. This annual visit delights thousands of spectators, and is sure to put you in the holiday mood. • Everyone is invited to the WSDOT and City of Renton's Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank project kick-off event on Thursday, December 7th, 1:30—3:00 p.m., 800 SW 27th Street, Renton (project site). This project will re-establish and enhance more than 130 acres of wetlands in the Renton area. The wetland and habitat mitigation "bank" is the first of its kind in Washington, and will re-connect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek in a highly urbanized area. The project will include a boardwalk trail and interpretive signing allowing the community to learn from the site as well as enjoy it. Administrative Report November 20,2006 Page 2 • During December, the City of Renton will be conducting a community survey in Renton and surrounding areas to identify current and future residents' needs and interests related to cable television operations and programming. The survey is part of the City's cable television franchise review process. A company called"Issues and Answers" will conduct the telephone survey. The questions will focus on how residents use and value the services provided by Comcast cable television today, and their potential future needs from the system. The findings from the survey will be used to inform the City's franchise negotiations with Comcast during 2007. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • The annual K9 Candy Cane 5K Fun Run& Walk will start at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday, December 3rd, at the Renton Community Center and travel along the Cedar River Trail before looping back to the Community Center. Competitive runners, fun runners, walkers,junior athletes, and families (with or without dogs) are all invited to join the fun. Free after-race photos with Santa will be available. Race day registration is $20 (no t-shirt guaranteed). Bring a can of pet food to be donated to the Renton Food Bank to help the pets of those in need. For more information, call 425-430-6700. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • Maintenance crews will be applying de-icing compound to major arterials and heavily traveled streets on Renton's hills tonight(Monday) to prevent accumulation of snow. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: C0' t.L kase Submitting Data: For Agenda of: November 27, 2006 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/Mayor's Office Staff Contact Kathy Keolker, Mayor Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Municipal Arts Commission Reappointments: Ordinance Ms. Kristi Hand, Ms. Marie McPeak, Ms. Evelyn Resolution Reingold, Ms. Eleanor Simpson Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated lior Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Keolker reappoints the following to the Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term, expiring on December 31, 2009: Ms. Kristi Hand, 517 Smithers Ave N, Renton, WA 98057 Ms. Marie McPeak,409 Jefferson Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Ms. Evelyn Reingold, 833 SW Sunset Blvd, L-56, Renton, WA 98057 Ms. Eleanor Simpson, 418 Wells Ave N, Renton, WA 98057 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Keolker's reappointments of Ms. Kristi Hand, Ms. Marie McPeak, Ms. Evelyn Reingold, and Ms. Kristi Hand to the Municipal Arts Commission. Rentonnetlagnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Qy �® 11.01 Submitting Data: AJLS For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Mayor's Office November 27, 2006 Staff Contact Marty Wine, Asst. CAO (x6526) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Preserve our Plateau Annexation Election Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Resolution Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City transmits the February 6, 2007 annexation election ballot title, explanatory statement, and notifies King County of creation of voter's pamphlet committees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit election information to King County Records and Elections, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to appoint committees to write the voter's pamphlet statements for the Preserve our Plateau Annexation election. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh `S-V O•et ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND • c. LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT• .11 `e*P'4Nry4� MEMORANDUM DATE: November 21, 2006 TO: Council President Randy Corman Members, Renton City Council CC: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk FROM: x'1 Mayor Kathy Keolker STAFF CONTACT: Marty Wine, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer(x6526) SUBJECT: Preserve our Plateau Annexation Request for inclusion in Voter's Pamphlet for February 6, 2007 election ISSUE King County Records and Elections requires that a local voter's pamphlet be specifically requested by ordinance or resolution by the governing authority of the jurisdiction, no siorw later than forty-five days prior to the election date. RECOMMENDATION Approve a resolution requesting that King County produce a voter's pamphlet for the February 6, 2007 election on the question of the Preserve our Plateau Annexation. BACKGROUND SUMMARY Resolution 3829 was approved on September 15, 2006 requesting King County to hold an election for the Preserve our Plateau Annexation. King County is preparing an ordinance to place the issue on the ballot, and has requested the list of names for the voters' pamphlet from the City of Renton. For future annexations, it is the intent of the Administration to avoid separate resolutions by including this voter's pamphlet request in the resolution calling for the election. If this resolution is approved, City staff will contact persons who testified for and against annexation since 2005 invite them to serve on a committee to prepare arguments for approval, or for rejection, of the measure. It is the City's responsibility to submit names of committee members; forward the names of spokespersons for the committees; provide contact information; and inform committee members regarding instructions and deadlines. This information is due to the Clerk of the Metropolitan King County Council by November 30 for inclusion in their ordinance, and by December 5 for submittal at King County Records and Elections. Noe c:\documents and settings\mwine\desktop\voters pamphlet issue paper 112107.doc CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO PLACE PROPOSITION 1 BEFORE THE VOTERS, INCLUDING THE PREPARATION OF INFORMATION FOR THE VOTER'S PAMPHLET, FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON FEBRARY 6, 2007, REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1,475 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY WITHIN RENTON'S EAST RENTON PLATEAU POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA, ALSO KNOWN AS THE PRESERVE OUR PLATEAU ANNEXATION AREA (POPA). WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, the City of Renton passed Resolution No. 3829 supporting the annexation of contiguous unincorporated territory, referred to as the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation area, lying generally in the area bounded by the City of Renton corporate boundary and SE 128th Street west of 156th Avenue SE, and north of SE 138th Street and the Urban Growth Area boundary east of 154th Place SE/156th Avenue SE; and WHEREAS, in that Resolution the City Council called for a special election to be held on February 6, 2007, pursuant to Chapter 29.13.020 RCW and Chapter 35A.14 RCW, to submit to the voters of the aforesaid territory the proposal for annexation; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City Council to authorize the actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters for the February 6, 2007, election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION IT. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to take those actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters on the February 6, 2007, election. 1 RESOLUTION NO. SECTION ILL The City Attorney has prepared the following ballot title for Noe Proposition 1. The City Clerk is authorized to transmit this ballot title to King County Division of Records and Elections: PROPOSITION I ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON The Renton City Council received a petition to annex property to the City of Renton and passed Resolution No. 3829 calling for an election on the question. This measure would authorize annexation of that property to the City of Renton, generally referred to as the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation Area(POPA Annexation). Shall that area in unincorporated King County known as the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation Area as legally described in City of Renton Resolution No. 3829 be annexed to the City of Renton. C For Annexation Against Annexation SECTION IV. The Mayor is authorized and directed to take those actions necessary to place the information regarding Proposition 1 in the February 6, 2007, election's voter's pamphlet. SECTION V. Actions taken prior to adoption of this resolution that are consistent with it are hereby ratified and confirmed. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. *are Kathy Keolker, Mayor 2 RESOLUTION NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1224:11/9/06:ma 3 Are3 1 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Li ; el fy Submitting Data: For Agenda of: November 27, 2006 w. Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services Staff Contact Jerry Rerecich, X6615 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Proposed 2007 Henry Moses Aquatic Center fees. Correspondence.. Ordinance XX Resolution Old Business Exhibits: • New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Fee schedule. Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept XX Refer to Committee of the Whole. Finance Dept XX Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount BudgetedVitor Revenue Generated $53,850 Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Henry Moses Aquatic Center fees have not increased since the facility opened in 2004. This increase is needed to cover cost increases required to provide aquatic services and has been incorporated into the 2007 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize increase of 2007 Henry Moses Aquatic Center fees. Sine Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Nor sN�o� MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Renton City Councilmembers VIA: ) Kathy Keolker, Ma r FROM: ' Terry Higashiyama, ommunity Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Rerecich, Recreation Director, x6615 SUBJECT: 2007 Henry Moses Aquatic Center Proposed Fee Increase ISSUE: Should the Council approve the proposed 2007 Henry Moses Aquatic Center fee increase? BACKGROUND: The fees at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center have not increased since the facility opened Num, in 2004. Increased fees will provide needed revenue to continue to provide services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize fee increases in 2007. c: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Mike Bailey,Finance/IS Administrator 'or h:\jerry 06\proposed fee increase henry moses aquatic center 2007.doc 2007 HENRY MOSES AQUATIC CENTER INFORMATION 2007 Schedule Training: Saturday, June 9 - Friday, June 15, 2007 Open: Saturday, June 16 and Sunday, June 17, 2007 Closed: Monday, June 18 - Friday, June 22, 2007 (Schools are in session) School Parties: Available June 18 - June 22, 2007 (McKnight&Nelson already scheduled) Re-Open: Saturday, June 23 - Monday, September 3, 2007 (Labor Day) Hours of Operation (see attached chart) The addition of a Friday"Family Night" and/or"Teen Night" under the lights would be promoted. Daily Fee Proposal 2005/2006 Rates 2007 Proposed Rates Resident Non Res Non Infants (under 1 year) Free Free Free Free Ages 1 to 4 Free Free $2 $3 Ages 5 to 12 $4 $6 $5 $7 Ages 13 to 17 $5 $8 $6 $9 Adult $6 $12 $7 $13 Senior(50 & up) $5 $6 $6 $7 Lap swim/water walking only $3 $4 $3 $4 Now Season Pass Card Fee Proposal 2005/2006 Rates 2007 Proposed Rates Resident Non Res Non Ages 1 - 4 $20 $30 Ages 5 to 12 $48 $72 $50 $75 Ages 13 to 17 yrs $60 $96 $62 $100 Adult $72 $144 $75 $150 Senior(55 &up) $60 $72 $62 $75 Lap swim only $36 $48 $37 $50 Family $168 $288 $175 $300 Group Rate Fee Proposal 2005/2006 Rates 2007 Proposed Rates Resident Non Res Non Per Person $5 $8 $6 $9 • For groups of ten or more • Must be scheduled in advance • Guaranteed admission • The number of groups may be limited each day • Must have the appropriate ratio of chaperones H/Shared/Jerry06/2007 Pool Preseason Proposal 1 Canopy Rental Fees (includes canopy and admission for one leisure swim session) Nor Henry Moses Party Tent#1 (10x20 for up to 25 guests) 2005/2006 Rates 2007 Proposed Rates Resident Rates Non-Resident Rates Resident Non $150 $180 $1.55 $190 Henry Moses Party Tent#2 (10x10 for up to 15 guests) 2005/2006 Rates 2007 Proposed Rates Resident Rates Non-Resident Rates Resident Non $100 $120 $105 $130 Swim Lesson Program 2005/2006 Rates 2007 Proposed Rates Resident Rates Non-Resident Rates Resident Non $5/lesson $6/lesson $5.50/lesson $6.60/lesson End of Year School Party Rentals 2005/2006 Rates/2007 Proposed Rates Number of Students Renton School District Other Schools 001-299 $1,625 $1,675 $1,950 $2,010 300-399 $1,950 $2,010 $2,350 $2,420 400-499 $2,115 $2,180 $2,550 $2,625 %r 500-599 $2,275 $2,345 $2,750 $2,830 All-Inclusive Rentals -New for the 2007 Season The whole facility would be available for rental on designated evenings. Cost would be based on a full lifeguard staff, as all areas of the facility would be open. Concession, front desk and guest services staff would be minimal. The total cost of$ ,925 5 for a 2-hour rental was determined by staff costs plus an additional 20% for overhead. Groups would be limited to a maximum of 500 people, due to other evening events held at the Renton Community Center and Carco Theatre. At this time, there is no data to determine how successful this program would be. err H/Shared/Jerry06/2007 Pool Preseason Proposal 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL I AI#: (o, e 1/4000, Submitting Data: For Agenda of: November 27, 2006 Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services Staff Contact Jerry Rerecich,X6615 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Proposed fee and rate increases for Community Services Department facilities. • Correspondence.. Ordinance XX Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Fee and rate schedule. Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept XX Refer to Committee of the Whole. Finance Dept XX Other Fiscal Impact: yrs✓ Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Additional 2007Revenue Generated $20,000 Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Community Services fees and rates have not increased since 2005. This increase is needed to cover the increases required to provide services and has been incorporated into 2007 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize increase of 2007 Community Services fees and rates. Rentonnet/agnbiW bh CO, 0� COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT �: � � • � o� MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Renton City Councilmembers VIA: Kathy Keolker, Ma or FROM: --6A- `Terry Higashiyam , Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Rerecich, Recreation Director, x6615 SUBJECT: 2007 Proposed Fee Increases ISSUE: Should the Council approve the proposed 2007 Community Services fee and rate increases in 2007? BACKGROUND: Community Services fees and rates have not increased since 2005. Increased fees will Now provide revenue to continue to provide services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize fee and rate increases in 2007. c: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Mike Bailey,F/IS Administrator NONY h:\jerry 06\proposed fee increases 2007.doc City of Renton Community Services Department - Recreation Division 2006( .\TES 2007 PROPOSED RATES ATHLETIC FIELD FEES Proposed Proposed RENTON RESIDENT FEES Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Minimum *Prep Fee Fee Lights/Hr Fee Softball $10.00 $12 00 1.5 hrs $20.00 522.00 $12.00 $15.00 Baseball $10.00 $1 '.P 3 hrs $20.00 S22.01) $12.00 $15 0 Soccer $10.00 ;2..1,.) 2 hrs $30.00 $..12 '0 $12.00 $ 0 0 Football $10.00 $12_.00 1.5 hrs Varies $12.00 `;!.' >' Other $10.00 $12.00 1 hr TBD $12.00 ::12 00 Proposed Proposed NON-RESIDENT FEES Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Minimum *Prep Fee Pee Lights/Hr Fee Softball $12.00 $15.00 1.5 hrs $24.00 $25.00 $15.00 $18 00 Baseball $12.00 $15.00 3 hrs $24.00 $25.00 $15.00 $18.00 Soccer $12.00 $15.00 2 hrs $36.00 $38.00 $15.00 $18.00 Football $12.00 $15.00 1.5 hrs Varies $15.00 $18.00 Other $12.00 $15.00 1 hr TBD $15.00 $10.00 *Prep fee includes: Bases,field drag, and marking lines. PREP FEE IS OPTIONAL. CARCO THEATER RENTAL FEES RENTON RESIDENT NON-PROFIT FEE'S Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Non Profit Resident Rate $50.00 $55.00 Non-Profit 8 Hour Res Rate $350.00 $300 C'C> RENTON RESIDENT - OTHER FEES Hourly Rate Other Resident Rate $70.00 $:': t':, Other 8 Hour Res Rate $500.00 $5 15.00 NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT FEES Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Non-Resident Rate $60.00 $65.00 8 Hour Non Res Rate $450.00 S475.00 1[Path]#2 2007 Proposed Rate Increase Worksheet without pool fees.xlsl1/21/2006 City of Renton Community Services Department - Recreation Division 2006( RTES 2007 PROPOSED RATES NON RESIDENT - OTHER FEES Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Non Resident Other $85.00 $90.00 8 Hour Non Resident Other $600.00 $620.00 EQUIPMENT Daily Rate Proposed FeeiDay Lapel Mic _ $8.00 $10.00 Wireless Handheld Mic $8.00 $10.00 SENIOR ACTIVITY CENTER RENTAL INFORMATION 2006 City of Renton Senior Activity Center RENTAL INFORMATION - PROPOSED RATES FOR 2007 SENIOR CITIZEN RENTAL INFORMATION DAYS & TIMES AVAILABLE Wednesday&Friday Saturday Sunday 5:00 pm- 10:00 pm (Wednesday) 10:00 am- 1:00 am 10:00 am - 10:00 pm 5:00 pm- 1:00 am (Friday) (5 hr min. in seq.) (5 hr. min. in seq.) (5 hour min. in sequence) RENTAL FEE'S - SENIOR CITIZEN/RENTON RESIDENTS $225 City of Renton Resident $325 City Resident $325 City Resident $75*each additional hour(FRIDAY ONLY) $75*each add'I hr $75 *each add! hr RENTAL FEE'S - SENIOR CITIZEN/NON-RENTON RESIDENTS $300 Non-Resident $400 Non-Resident $400 Non-Resident $75*each additional hour(FRIDAY ONLY) $75*each add! hr $75*each add'I hr NON-SENIOR CITIZEN RENTAL INFORMATION DAYS & TIMES AVAILABLE Friday Saturday Sunday 5:00 pm- 1:00 am 10:00 am- 1:00 am 10:00 am- 10:00 pm (5 hour min. in sequence) (10 hr min. in seq.) (10 hr min. in seq.) 2[Path]#2 2007 Proposed Rate Increase Worksheet without pool fees.xlsl1/21/2006 City of Renton Community Services Department - Recreation Division 20061 ATES • 2007 PROPOSED RATES RENTAL FEE'S - NON-SENIOR CITIZEN/RENTON RESIDENTS $375 City of Renton Resident $750 City Resident $750 City Resident $75*each additional hour $75*each addl hr $75*ea add'I hr RENTAL FEE'S - NON-SENIOR CITIZEN/NON-RENTON RESIDENTS $450 Non-Resident $900 Non-Resident $900 Non-Resident $90*each additional hour $90*ea add! hr $90*ea add'I hr RENTON COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL INFORMATION RENTON RESIDENT RENTAL FEE Banquet Room -Friday, Saturday, Sunday Current Fee Proposed F eo Friday- 5 hour minimum $350.00 5 17,;)17 Saturday- 10 hour minimum $700.00 .;.`.; u(, Sunday- 10 hour minimum $700.00 5 i'::, ; ut) Kitchen $75.00 $80.00 Extra Hours $70.00 $75.00 Banquet Room-Monday thru Thursday Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Full Room $60.00 $65.00 2/3 Room $40.00 $45.00 • Other Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Classroom $15.00 $20.00 Full Gym Rental $30.00 $35.00 Double Gym Rental $60.00 $70.00 Special Event Rental Current Fee Proposed Fee Full Gym $450.00 $500.00 Double Gym $900.00 $1.000.00 Carpet Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee Full Gym $125.00 5150 o Double Gym $250.00 3[Path]#2 2007 Proposed Rate Increase Worksheet without pool fees.xlsl1/21/2006 City of Renton Community Service Department - Recreation Division 20001, 2007 PROPOSED RATES Birthday Party Packages Hourly Rate Proposed Foe Preschool Package $25.00 $30.00 Bounce Package $50.00 $55.00 Sports Package $35.00 $40.00 NON-RESIDENT RENTAL FEES Banquet Room -Friday, Saturday, Sunday Current Fee Proposed Fee Friday--5 hour minimum $425.00 $450.00 Saturday- 10 hour minimum $850.00 $900.00 Sunday- 10 hour minimum $850.00 S900.00 Kitchen $75.00 $80.00 Extra Hours $85.00 $90.00 Banquet Room-Monday thru Thursday Hourly Rate Proposes+ Foe Full Room $75.00 :,;tj':?.t'!- 2/3 Room $50.00 $80 C,i; Other Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Classroom $20.00 $25.00 Full Gym Rental $36.00 $40.00 Double Gym Rental $72.00 $80.00 Special Event Rental Current Fee Proposed Fee Full Gym $540.00 $600.00 Double Gym $1,080.00 $1,200.00 Carpet Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee Full Gym $125.00 $150.00 Double Gym $250.00 $300.00 Birthday Party Packages Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Preschool Package $30.00 $30.00 Bounce Package $60.00 ;;,;;, Sports Package $42.00 >,1`2,,S i 4[Path]#2 2007 Proposed Rate Increase Worksheet without pool fees.xlsl 1/21/2006 City of Renton Community Servicp Department - Recreation Division 2006t )(TES 2007 PROPOSED RATES OUTSIDE FACILITY RENTAL RENTON RESIDENT RENTAL FEE Hourly Rate Meeting Room/During Operating Hours $15.00 o t. Meeting Room/During Non-Operating Hrs $22.00 $35.00' Gymnasium During Operating Hours $15.00 $20.00 Gymnasium During Non-Operating Hours $20.00 $35.00' Neighborhood Park Buildings*** $15.00 $20.00 (Kiwanis, Kennydale Park,Thomas Teasdale Park, Philip Arnold Park,Tiffany Park) NON-RESIDENT RENTAL FEES Hourly Rate Proposed Fee Meeting Room/During Operating Hours $20.00 $25.00 Meeting Room/During Non-Operating Hrs $27.00 540.00* Gymnasium During Operating Hours $20.00 $25.00 Gymnasium During Non-Operating Hours $25.00 S40.{70• Neighborhood Park Buildings*** $20.00 $25.00 (Kiwanis, Kennydale Park,Thomas Teasdale Park, Philip Arnold Park,Tiffany Park) PICNIC SHELTERS RENTON RESIDENT RENTAL FEE Current Fee Proposeo Fe 8:00 am - Noon (Groups 1-75) $50.00 $53.0:) 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm (Groups 1-75) $50.00 6:00 pm - 1/2 hour after sunset(Groups 1-75) $50.00 $$55.00 All Day(Groups 1-75) $75.00 $80.00 Groups over 76-150 $100.00 $110.00 Groups over 150 not allowed. NON-RENTON RESIDENT RENTAL FEE Current Fee Proposed Fee 8:00 am - Noon (Groups 1-75) $100.00 $110.00 1:00 pm- 5:00 pm (Groups 1-75) $100.00 5110.00 6:00 pm - 1/2 hour after sunset (Groups 1-75) $100.00 5110.00 All Day(Groups 1-75) $150.00 $160.00 5[Pathl#2 2007 Proposed Rate Increase Worksheet without pool fees.xls11/21/2006 City of Renton Community Servic s Department - Recreation Division 2004 ,ATES 2007 PROPOSED RATES Groups over 76-150 $200.00 $210.00 Groups over 150 not allowed. 6[Path]#2 2007 Proposed Rate Increase Worksheet without pool fees.xlsl1/21/2006 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Skase I AI#: LA j ,p Submitting Data: For Agenda of: November 27, 2006 Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Staff Contact Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner x7219 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. X Planned Action for Sub-district 1-B of the Boeing Correspondence.. Renton Plant property. Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Draft Ordinance Information Conceptual Redevelopment Plan Committee of the Whole Committee Report, which approved Conceptual Plan (Approved 11/14/2005) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Committee of the Whole and set a public Legal Dept X hearing for December 1 lth. Finance Dept 1411 Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Boeing, Co. is requesting the approval of an ordinance designating a planned action for sub- district 1-B of the Boeing Renton Plant property, an approximately 51 acre parcel bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8th Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south. A conceptual plan was approved by the City Council on November 14, 2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh �ti`SY o PLANNING/BUILDING/ ♦ a cm. + PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT bin ‘1'•Nrc0� MEMORANDUM DATE: October 27, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: -J" Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerma ministrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACT: Jill Ding(ext. 7219) SUBJECT: Sub-district 1-B Planned Action Ordinance ISSUE: Should the City of Renton adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance prepared by The Boeing Co., which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan wry Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)completed in October of 2003? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Boeing, Co. is requesting approval of planned action legislation, which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October 2003. The approval of planned action legislation would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing environmental documentation, as allowed by RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315. As a result of approving planned action legislation, the applicant would be required to submit an environmental consistency analysis with each phase of the project and receive subsequent approvals from the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The consistency analysis would be required as individual master plans and/or site plans are proposed. In addition, the adoption of planned action legislation provides added entitlement and scheduling predictability as the developer begins to prepare for the redevelopment of the 51 acre site. Boeing submitted a conceptual plan prepared by Seneca Real Estate Group Inc., which indicates that the northern 31.2 acres of the property is expected to become surplus and brought forward for redevelopment in the immediate future. This property is under a "right of first refusal" agreement with Harvest Partners, the owner and developer of the 46 acres of property formerly owned by Boeing immediately adjacent to this property to the north. Boeing proposes that this initial parcel be developed with as much as 270,000 Page 2 of 2 October 27,2006 square feet of retail. The remaining property is expected to be retained by Boeing for 5 to 10 years. However, upon redevelopment, as much as 900,000 square feet of lab and/or office, as well as some additional retail and multi-family housing, could be developed in and around the 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings, which are anticipated to be sold and re-occupied by other companies. CONCLUSION: If the proposed Planned Action Ordinance were adopted by Council, the permitting process would be streamlined by utilizing existing environmental documentation. h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev&plan.ing\jkd\issue papers\subdist 1 b.doc 41 5 �``r'be`26.2005 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FULLER-SEARSB®Es/V� " ARCHITECTS SUB-DISTRICT 1 -B - 1 5 Ii ., ,- , , - , . I ,A----,,-, � .. L _ - 1�FCT831If _ _ - t — z 7 i.MAX.30%LOT COVERAGE -J, ` ``� ( IF 1-STORY RETAIL e' (270.000 SF) I ,� - s . . ' t F i -( - EXIST DATA �i`.� I f 1 ` f,� , I { '`� HUB _ . x rF w I . W $ ,, r.` I. t( r vf--f 4 ;►DP i r; [ ! p II DP-4 6 r II ' ' i i :i f/$--L''-'-' : " - ' s P!-1.; _. DP p P-3 I MAX 11O NflTS MA TWO MAX ONE S-STORY B.-STORY �4 ( ` y T MILY LAS, S. LAB BLDG. & I F I 1 - I T IAL •(31��F- BO;000 SF) ( ..„. t'.:'`',4101--- 7DTAt) Vif/Si1ARED / r r , ' .` ` ° • PARKING INN DP-2 '- ',4--*A.C,,,l . • "-#Y - GARAGE DP-4- ' ' ` AOT - i Y BIOG_ R 5 Sq I (ri2an___1 fr oNE ; ';MAL_TWO PART 6-STORY-BLDG. f-STORaL___ a • IP bFFICE . 1„1B B1DGS. `(+20;006 SFI (360,000:SF - - . wIUI Nov TOTAL , . 'N PARKING GARAGE ): LEGEND' SUPPORTED BY- I EX4ST.PARKI., BY,, G GARAGE R RETAIL NOTE L MAX 6-STORYI BUMS.BIS. LAB IF OFFICE (3W,000 SF) WITH NEW 2-3 STORY 0 OFFICE PARKING GARAGE P PARKING GARAGE I MF 1 f- MULTI-FAMILY I I — PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS I DRAFT 10/10/06 8:51 AM CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DESIGNATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT 1-B OF THE BOEING RENTON PLANT PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY LOGAN AVENUE N., GARDEN AVENUE N., NORTH 8TH STREET, AND 6TH STREET WHEREAS, RCW 43.21C.03I and WAC 197-11-164, - 168, and - 172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared to study the impacts of redeveloping a portion of Boeing's Renton Plant property, which EIS is titled the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS ("EIS"); and WHEREAS, the EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of mixed-use development on that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant known as Sub-District 1-B (see Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. '5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Employment Area — Industrial (EA-I), Employment Area — Transition (EA-T) and Employment Area Office (EA-O) to Urban Center North(UC-N); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance. No. 5027, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1); and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Boeing entered into a Development Agreement based on the analysis in the EIS, which is recorded under King County recording number ("Boeing Development Agreement") WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub- District 1-B ("1B Conceptual Plan"), attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-District 1B, which compares the proposed 1B Conceptual Plan to the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance designates certain land uses and activities within Sub- District 1-B as "Planned Actions" that are consistent with the Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1) designation and zone; [03003-0166-000000/1 0869322_2.DOCI I • ORDINANCE NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Purpose. The City of Renton declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Sub-District 1-B as "Planned Actions" consistent with state law, RCW 43.21C.031; and B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a Planned Action and how land use applications which qualify as Planned Actions within Sub-District 1-B will be processed by the City; and C. Streamline and expedite future land use permit review processes for development in the Sub-District 1-B area that is consistent with the 1B Conceptual Plan by relying on existing detailed environmental analysis for this area. SECTION II. Findings. The City Council finds that: A. The EIS addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the scenarios described in the EIS for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced therein, and the lB ' Conceptual Plan is encompassed by and consistent with those Alternatives; and B. The mitigation measures contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, together with the City's development standards, and standard mitigation fees (Parks, Fire and Traffic), are adequate to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed 1B Conceptual Plan; and C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance economic development; and D. Opportunities for public involvement have been provided as part of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation, the Boeing Plant rezone, the EIS, and the Conceptual Plan review and approval process for Sub-District 1-B. SECTION III. Designation of Planned Action; Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Establishing Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Designated. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the Sub-District 1-B site, as shown on Exhibit A, and associated off-site improvements. Uses and activities described in the 1B Conceptual Plan, attached as Exhibit B, subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and subject to the mitigation measures required by City Codes or contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, are 4,100 designated Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.21.C.031. Additionally, the Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the proposed development on Sub-District IB, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. (03003-0166-000000/10869322_2 DOC 2 ORDINANCE NO. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. The Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees, and standards, shall provide the framework for a decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the EIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. Planned Action Threshold. 1. The land uses and development levels established by the 1B Conceptual Plan, together with their customary accessory uses and amenities and associated off-site improvements, shall be considered Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.21.C.031. If amendments of the approved 1B Conceptual Plan exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the EIS, supplemental environmental review may be required under SEPA Rules. D. Planned Action Review Criteria. *me1. The Director of Development Services, or the Director's designee, is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a), if the project application meets WAC 197-11-172 and all of the following conditions: a) The project is located on Sub-District 1-B, or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on Sub-District 1-B; and b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RCW 36.70A; and c) The Director has determined that the project's significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS by reviewing the environmental checklist or other project review form as specified in WAC 190-11-315; and d) The project complies with the Planned Action threshold described in this Ordinance; and e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Boeing Development Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees, and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for any significant environmental impacts associated with Sub-District 1-B development; and 'ver f) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been requested; and [03003-0166-000000/10869322_2.DOCI 3 ORDINANCE NO. Nissi g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. E. Effect of Planned Action. 1. Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned Action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), or any additional review under SEPA. 2. Designation as a Planned Action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS. 3. Planned Actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA. However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. F. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: 1. Development applications shall meet the requirements of RMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SEPA checklist or revised SEPA checklist [where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)] or such other environmental review forms provided by the Planning/Building/Public Work Department. The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an application; 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. 3. If the project application is within Sub-District 1-B, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in section III of this Ordinance. 4. Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review, threshold determination, or EIS shall be required. 5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no notice is required. 103003-0 166-000000;10869322_2.DOCj 4 ORDINANCE NO. 6. If a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe an appropriate SEPA review procedure consistent with City SEPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action. 7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the EIS, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the EIS. SECTION IV. Validity Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 31, 2030 by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of Planned Action requirements. Based upon this review, the Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another validity period may be specified. SECTION V. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any other ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. Igoe SECTION VI. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of June, 2006. /s/BONNIE I. WALTON Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk fire (03003-0166-000000/10869322_2.DOC) 5 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006.. Is/ KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: [03003-0166-000000/10869322_2.DOC) 6 41,0„ Perkins Coie tom' 1201 Third Avenue,Suite 4800 Laura N.Whitaker V Seattle,WA 98101-3099 exorle 206.359.8584 CT 0 3PHONE:206.359.8000 FAX' 206.359.9584 snren.: T�� FAX:206.359.9000 Iwhitaker@perkinscoie.com NF A nD www.perkinscoie.com �1 tar7Dvp September 30, 2005 Mr. Neil Watts Development Services Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Boeing Renton Plant Redevelopment/Application for Conceptual Plan and Planned Action Approvals for Subdistrict 1B Dear Mr. Watts: As you know, the 2003 Development Agreement between the City and Boeing addresses the process by which land owned by Boeing and located within the UC-N zone may be segregated. Among other things, the Development Agreement provides that a Conceptual Plan must be developed and approved for certain "Subdistricts" prior to their segregation, which Subdistricts include "Subdistrict 1B," an area commonly known as the 10-80 site, Lot 10 and other Boeing-owned parcels east of Logan Avenue and south of 8th Street. Pursuant to the Development Agreement and guided by the development envelope established by the Environmental Impact Statement prepared in 2003 to disclose potential impacts of eventual Renton Plant redevelopment, Boeing has developed a Conceptual Plan for Subdistrict IB (the "Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan" or "Conceptual Plan") and hereby submits it to the City for review and approval. As you will see, the Conceptual Plan is consistent with the overall densities assumed by the EIS for Subdistrict IB. It is also consistent with the range of uses both allowed within the UC-N zone and assumed by the alternative, "mix-and-match" development scenarios analyzed in the EIS. [03003-0166/SB052700.215] ANCHORAGE - BEIJING - BELLEVUE - BOISE - CHICAGO - DENVER - HONG KONG - LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK - OLYMPIA • PHOENIX • PORTLAND - SAN FRANCISCO - SEATTLE • WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Neil Watts September 30, 2005 Page 2 In addition to Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan approval pursuant to the Development Agreement, Boeing also seeks approval of Planned Action status for the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan pursuant to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the Renton Municipal Code. Boeing bases its Planned Action request on the fact that, subject to the development thresholds established by the Development Agreement and summarized below, environmental impacts of potential redevelopment of Subdistrict 1B have been fully disclosed for purposes of SEPA. Subdistrict IB Planned Action/Summary of Conceptual Plan Consistency with 2003 EIS and UC-N Development Standards 1. Building Heights — Building heights proposed within Subdistrict 1B would not exceed maximum heights allowed in the UC-N1 zone. It is anticipated that, relative to heights reviewed in the EIS, proposed increases in height greater than 10%would require additional SEPA review addressing aesthetics and shadows. 2. Transportation a) Trip Ranges: The range of trips proposed in the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan was reviewed in the EIS. b) Trip Threshold: The Subdistrict IB Conceptual Plan proposes a level of trip generation and distribution consistent with levels analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that development which would exceed the maximum trip levels shown in the EIS would complete additional SEPA review. c) Road Improvements: The Planned Action would require on-site and off-site road improvements. These road improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that significant changes to the road improvement plan that have the potential to significantly increase impacts to air quality, water quality, fisheries resources, or noise levels beyond the levels analyzed in the EIS would require additional SEPA review. 3. Earth— The level of development proposed by the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan is consistent with development levels analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that a significant change in amount of grading assumed in the EIS which has the potential to adversely affect water quality or fisheries require additional SEPA review. • [03003-0166/513052700.215] 09/30/05 Nifty Mr. Neil Watts September 30, 2005 Page 3 4. Air Quality— The EIS addresses air quality impacts generated by traffic levels associated with redevelopment that are consistent with development levels proposed by the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan. It is anticipated that a significant change in configuration, increase in building heights, or significant decrease in setbacks between residential and manufacturing uses deemed to significantly affect localized air quality and odor conditions could require additional SEPA review. 5. Water— The level of development proposed by Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan is consistent with development levels analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that the following changes by the Planned Action scenarios to the Alternatives analyzed in the EIS could require additional SEPA review: a) Change in peak flows to Johns Creek significantly exceeding the levels reviewed in the EIS. lowly b) Increase in number of outfalls to Johns Creek or Lake Washington • relative to the number of required outfalls assumed in the EIS. 6. Public Services and Utilities —The level of development proposed by the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan is consistent with development levels analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that a significant increase in the number of square feet or dwelling units beyond the maximum number analyzed in the EIS could require additional SEPA review to address impacts to fire, police, schools, parks, water, wastewater or solid waste, as applicable. 7. Cumulative Impacts — When analyzed together with previously approved and currently proposed Subdistrict lA redevelopment, Subdistrict 1B development levels do not exceed the level of total development for District 1 analyzed in the EIS. For the reasons set forth above and in the proposed Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan, we request that the City approve the Subdistrict lB Conceptual Plan and designate the Conceptual Plan as a Planned Action for purposes of SEPA. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration of this request. [03003-0166/SB052700.2151 09/30/05 Mr. Neil Watts September 30, 2005 Page 4 Very truly yours,/ )/q 4 ,; Laura N. Whitaker TBH:tbh cc: Alex Pietsch Jeff Adelson Shaunta Hyde Laura Lohman Cati [03003-0166/SB052700.2151 09/30/05 • Now SENECA REAL ESTATE GROUP INC. .rr • �-.:.. _:.+-.;�s+ -. ;rs>;a�vai✓-z:M.sxewVpYafssuaWxMr�m�ixn'f�R:.- ,.: .. ....�..._ :.o..,,c�,. .-....as ...,K•-„ara+nvw!8K9S�Jt*':ti.' +iZS. :�>i �f•+�.1'�3±c—.;..3::S�F-s�.tF.91@II .,3-.. _ .T.3�e'A^.ai`;a� >.. • I a I I THE BOEING COMPANY I I I CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN SUB-DISTRICT 1-B I I I 3 I I I i I I Submitted to the City of Renton 1 October 3, 2005 • bow CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Sub-District 1-B Renton, Washington Background The Boeing Company has been working with the City of Renton since early 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with its 737 facility in Renton, Washington(the"Renton Plant Site"). In December 2003, The Boeing Company and The City of Renton entered into a Development Agreement that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant Site, including: • Renton commitments to fund and construct certain public infrastructure improvements; • Boeing commitments to fund certain private aspects of redevelopment; and ■ Boeing commitments to complete Conceptual Plans when it elects toubdivide S , develop, sell, or otherwise alter any property for uses not related to airplane manufacturing. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, Conceptual Planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the Site, known as Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B, and District 2 (see Exhibit 1). City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the Site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. I Harvest Partners is currently refining its development plan for Sub-District 1-A, which is 311 also sometimes referred to as both Lots 1 —4 and Lakeshore Landing. Harvest Partners' SI preliminary planning anticipates the development of an urban retail center containing approximately 800,000 square feet of retail, with the potential for additional hotel, office space and multifamily residential units. Construction of the retail project is anticipated to begin in 2006. Sub-District 1-B Sub-District 1-B is located immediately to the south of Lakeshore Landing, as illustrated on Exhibit 2, and totals approximately 50.7 acres, net of that portion which has been reserved for the extension of a four-lane 8th Avenue between Logan and Park Avenues. As is outlined within the 2003 Development Agreement, the construction of two new lanes along this segment of 8a'is necessary to support the redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B (see Exhibit 3). Page 1 of 9 October 3,2005 The City of Renton is currently completing its design for this segment of 8th Avenue,and expects to begin building at least the two northern-most lanes in March, 2006, simultaneous with the other infrastructure improvements necessary to support the redevelopment of Sub-District 1-A. Ultimately, two additional lanes (to the south) along this same segment of 8th will be required to support the redevelopment of District 2. Harvest Partners has a Right of First Offer tb purchase a portion of the Sub-District which totals approximately 21.2 acres(see Exhibit 3). Harvest Partners has indicated =their interest in developing this portion, known as the ROFO area, with retail uses that are complementary with the proposed development of Sub-District 1-A as an urban retail center. The development intent of the ROFO area as depicted with this Conceptual Redevelopment Plan is based upon feedback from Harvest Partners as to their proposed project and from The City of Renton as to their goals for redevelopment within the Urban Center North. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the"Boeing Remainder", as illustrated on Exhibit 2. Portions of the Boeing Remainder are currently improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.85 acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels("DP 1" through"DP 4") within this Conceptual Plan. Submittal Included within this submittal are a narrative description of Boeing's proposal for Sub- District 1-B, a Conceptual Planning Diagram, and two economic benefit analyses demonstrating a range of potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (1) Development illustrated within the Planning Diagram on the ROFO portion of the Sub-District (beginning in 2007); and (2) Development illustrated within the Planning Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2007 for DP 1 and in 2016 for DP 2—DP 4). Boeing seeks the City's approval of this Conceptual Plan so that it can complete a Binding Site Plan creating additional lots, and finalize negotiations with Harvest Partners related to the acquisition of the ROFO portions of the Sub-District. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder(with the exception of DP 1) is not currently envisioned to occur sooner than 5 to 10 years in the future. I Page 2 of 9 October 3,2005 • I •1 ,,•'.., •,..• ,,'. ... • . ' , ••' ', .•,..''. , .•... .1.,‘.. ...,4.'. •',.::..4', •.'•',• , ),•,'",Y.., ,•,..•••,..4..,. ,,,,'A,r.t. ',, ,,,,,,,,isrporyiirlip, , „sfirrtut,71111.,,,,.iit,it lir,‘, .,,, it, AI . . . . . .. . . , , . . . „ . . _ . , .,.. ,::,..,...„:r •• ..r, • t{+ a r a+of ', +n i': « a wee< v a 1 rF a + �r t+ g ""N+a ffinrx1 +r'Lv 9 rr.l t . 's}a r a x� 4`,"k, `,y '""P'''''''''''' „ti `;''',h+fr 4 ' t 'S.” r ' `cs- ;r 7 p'T'z,.� ., `. d?l glt""'":';c"?' 4d�Y�tF r�r i.y sY'yt'.a,� rffs.�a *r,,.4:,,..,V, • i r^ r y> , ' �' .. t. , s� }k� ,.,� 8'�^ • f''S &} �gyp. Y* �,', ":r, } ray t y' M ',,,',,,,,r,„'., %,,,, Lo, ..,-,` f't., c,,i ,,, t , , s� � B rr . �, .. '", LA O ' r h 5i'E •LANDING :4,„,,,,.,,,,,,,,,.,,-aS� 3 ar x': r d„ �i� " t 4 s a fb' s"� ,r,,t a +y� +' e r • ..• „•,. •.'rt.;i}1, i•,r., `a3t'✓. . .,.,,,,,....„,:,.4„,:.tis:w <tMr.Fr`k 3.��' .cri ` ,"° r•� ;4i:'11.4"''' y, +',''''C'''%'::'..44.': e�:.4 <,,1,',+}:, 4.. r "p �,‘,.. ,,,..,,,eie.,•._ ,,..,.,:•,,,,,,...„...„:.;,,., .,f; I • ..,,,„„ :.:_,,,.,' ry .`'`."_',~ .) .,,µf k � r. , ; ll'Z 'z. 8 ( �sf;Urban Retails', • . y�e r f;r,,,,..,,.i..4.,,...:riii,..,.f....f,, „+,.''': l xfN >1 S�"' 'tp S`9i3 �n' .3 4.t''''' ry.6:{!:.; "��. ` ' niter . "pkA� s �afy, 5 F�, 1,1,�. x .,.9,,, - Y "race::�� R' ' ,,,,,,e,-..„.„ sd6'�'` ,, t, e .., ' 1"`•'i Y. .'^`,,,...,,,• ♦!!!!! ..4„,:;„ p;;ts;•' %a`�F� n v 4, � ' "a�$'.� ,�1 4.1......m. !ir ;t ,, .,, „,,..$0,-.7.-!„-1,..,.k.,.,",,,;!...:4,,•;;..,,,,17.}b ` t sr , ,,t •:i704..., r,•., ,•' /!ww/w■www!/ww1 m. a ^ y +' Q( �' xa9 t ..,...., 49,-,'4,-.....,:. r a r v f. . /!u/u■ ,�+: +r ;l. 1��'w�•.,$ = 4'i'.` ,,.....,,,,,,,:..v.,,,.,,.,..,,. , y, �� i.� „41,•,_,-,1,_.--,1,..11,1,;::::::::::::••twu m •,. '�gt , s y'w. .k:ry.;R .,,',,,, Y Ax } 4i` £ ''',444".4.,'‘,4,.,;44411, .........m....................,„. ,' to` ,^ ,.. t.,4�ki� rirt 1 rn a ,,,,,r' _?T A. ,i v ,7E,N �o a y iti .s l(r c fi y Y . '^. r c,' r fie” ;� r. '�* �. 'jr''F" p. • P .. - 'u'id 3 +'sY y,,,r t 8r -, ,, ', n .,k t'' 5 K r :::, I ' ` d, ts'*�s,° es a r n,.. ., � 'p �.' ',..n' p . � .fi r "r`.;,a . . h sz 5 ri CON R ? iii: .A.,:,..,-.6..v:1,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,.,, .4 : . .mow 1 z AL�PLAN AREA:. h . ...„,„.„.„.••. ,-...„•,,„...,„....,„:„..,. .,,:,,40,..,,,.., . ,�,`.,n-Rrr ,,, ,. n 1 t�'l s,...„ ,,,,„ .„.,,,,,...,., .:...„.r.:„.,..,.,„: . ', � • , ,!,..,,..-,.....',.•.;,:',.'„‘' ✓ri S r �• , :Su {t� ,/�'�t 9r .. ;'c?a, d yw z,„Kv'„�,, .. ',, ""» ,' ' "G: ,,, I ,,_ A�.Y�.S .,,,, ,,. r ��, b-D��t�rlt=' �� , • •,. ..„,,,,,„,„,: , ... ..„. �r h -} } 4 Cyt 9 9 y „. ,,„,,,, , . , - .' ;'re ' bckr �L x Y. S'' � � .. ',4.,t?;;,-;',4,.::g '” .'k�`P ,iry. } w ,!`4',1., .. 1 p •••,:::'.•,,,,, Y 4 '"4". ' '. y1•i M September 26D005 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FULLER6SEARS SUB-DISTRI T '�DEFW 1 �3 ARCHITECTS C —B — i . . it::.- • ,...: . -•,;'•..1"`,.-7,--0:--,....-,-.2'_.- -, Y e �" r - l k • MAX-30%LOT COVERAGE � f =. i, IF 1-STORY RETAIL _, ' ► _ (270,000 SF) - Mu — I OM M 0- , ,, . . - : - .... - EXIST DATA -r— ,_ ` k ' 4' - ' HUB c r aml;. i - __- 0. PI.,:,;i2;4,3'.Pi---i.... I- -, • - , --... -----i ! §f`E; t[ rf' = �1 4 EIS i -( i fi S E 4 -,...,,..i---_,.;Yt p 1.r. Y- ' C *:; dry= DP CC`. w: }.0.1; -- - f:..1 i t I "1,7_-- .1, = t; pp-1 :• [--;,E.i.':':.'‘,1,lit,:-.4-' , ---...gy,-,,lii... 1- ,..._,- ri3 ....:_ i: -.:1_ /(--, )- 2t, s` id r4/F I �. �� i -.-.... I..4-1----� --_.- � r1„, /Rf ei i_-,-,;--- f I -- _ y t is cmc; ae�� cy :ate — - _� {{ , -4 .. f ''0".ti ' .,! - -- 1 . i- . , .. _ .- :,.. :.,: f =, ~ re - �, ; = - ' �r I ,►, .1"t10 NITS MAL TWO MAX ONE ONE u.z F ? rF (C y I�" � 6,SrofnY i-STORY 3 r, e3. Y (If. LUGs. ! (' t E e ! f E sr. I' �, t.1AL ( SE I ! F! - + F I -:, € r i 4.'-;.-,-._. A E i t f NOT { 4 `rFr F4 ` tSTORY r C , _krwer„, 1 •�'4P A ►r a .,: .:,,.... „...,..,s�j l ; 1` iwo ;tat.. �` PARS ; Ltd-64d'.. 'r- U'PORT£Dt Y # i -.4'.i.;• - - - '.- ' '.T.-PARG GARAGE NOTE, ,j R RETAIL LD L 6-S1OFiY BGS. LAB IF OFFICE (300.000 sq WITH NEW 24 STORY 0 OFFICE PARKING GARAGE P PARKING GARAGE MF MULTI-FAMILY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS I era Conceptual Development Plan The Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B is comprised of two somewhat distinct parts. The ROFO area makes up the northern portion of the property along 8thAvenue, has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations, and is available for near-term redevelopment. The Boeing Remainder makes up the southern portion of the Sub-District, and contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space with re-use potential and approximately 12.85 acres of land with future redevelopment potential. ROFO Area Boeing recognizes that high-quality retail development is essential to the successful transition of the area from its industrial roots to the City's vision for the Urban Center- North. Harvest Partners and the City are both committed to ensuring that the development at Lakeshore Landing is well-designed and initiates redevelopment of a quality and at a scale which is consistent with the City's long-term vision for the area. As planning for Lakeshore Landing has progressed, the land south of 8th has been identified as an important component of the overall project. The area, known as the ROFO portion of Sub-District 1-B, has been illustrated within this Conceptual Plan as an integral part of the retail development planned to the North. The ROFO portion of the Sub-District is envisioned to contain a large format "destination"retailer located along Logan Avenue, with supporting retail shops space concentrated along both sides of Park Avenue. Generally, the large format retail development(users with footprints of 50,000 square feet or larger, and building heights up to 45 feet) is planned to occur along 8th and Logan, facing eastward toward Park Avenue. The supporting retail shops space would include a mixture of medium format retailers (ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet in area, with building heights up to 40 feet) and some component of smaller, specialty retail shops overlooking Park Avenue. The Plan anticipates pedestrian connections to occur internally within the site both east toward Park Avenue, and south toward 6th Avenue. Vehicle access would occur off of Park Avenue, with loading and delivery functions relying upon Garden Avenue and an internal service road running along the southern edge of the ROFO property line. At a maximum lot coverage ratio of 30%, the ROFO site could accommodate up to 270,000 square feet of retail space. Harvest's current planning anticipates a total of 225,000 to 230,000 square feet, comprised of a 135,000— 140,000 square-foot large format retailer located along Logan, and 85,000 to 90,000 square-feet of shops space. Parking is located in well-organized surface parking lots, with primary pedestrian entrances facing inward or directed toward Park Avenue. A small portion of the site, containing a data hub for the Boeing Plant, needs to be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. It can be accommodated along the 111 Page 5 of 9 October 3,2005 I a 4 S southern portion of a mid-block parking field without having a negative impact on the surrounding retail uses. Summary Redevelopment of the ROFO parcel as envisioned within this Conceptual Plan meets many of the City's vision and policy statements for the Urban Center-North,which call for"retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts." This site is located within District 1, where the City identifies its first objective as follows: "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." Boeing Remainder This portion of the plan is significantly influenced by the presence of four, 1980s-vintage office buildings that are located throughout(the 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20 buildings). Each structure is 5—6 stories in height,ranging between 160,000 and 170,000 square feet. Parking is accommodated in separate, structured garages and in surrounding surface lots, at an overall ratio of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Boeing currently utilizes these four buildings and anticipates no near-term changes that would result in significant rehab or sale of the structures. In addition to the existing office buildings, there is also a 1960s-vintage lab building, known as the 10-71 building, located along Logan Avenue. Although the condition of the building and the planned widening of Logan Avenue may impact its potential re-use, Boeing and the City are interested in exploring viable adaptive re-use opportunities. To illustrate the potential capacity for redevelopment within the Conceptual Plan, the 10-71 building has been assumed to be demolished, creating a 4.9-acre development parcel between Logan Avenue and the 10-20 building(DP 1). However, Boeing would like to retain the flexibility of considering either re-use of the existing structure or redevelopment in the future. I We have assumed that the existing office buildings remain, but could be supported in the future by parking at a market-driven ratio of 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, rather than at Boeing's more conservative rate. As a result, surplus parking stalls exist within the three existing parking garages, and three additional development parcels are created: a 3.9-acre site between the 10-18 and 10-20 buildings (DP2); a 1.8-acre site on the west side of Park Avenue north of 6th(DP3); and, a 2.2-acre site on the west side of Garden Avenue north of 6t(DP4). vad I Page 6 of 9 October 3,2005 I I 4 a DP1 4 This 4.9-acre parcel is located along Logan Avenue, immediately south of the ROFO property. Fronting on 6a'Avenue, it is also adjacent to the 10-20 office building and associated parking structure. Given its location and near-term redevelopment potential, the Plan envisions its redevelopment as either a mid-rise, multifamily project or, potentially, a retail development ancillary to that anticipated on the ROFO piece. If, instead, the existing building were re-used, it is envisioned that it would be of interest either as a cost-effective research and development or contract manufacturing facility. With the demolition of the existing structure, the DP-1 site could support a significant multi-family project, either incorporated in one or more stories above ground-floor retailers, or developed at higher densities as a single use project. A five-to six-story residential project, developed at densities of 110 units per acre, would be both consistent with the residential development currently planned at Lakeshore Landing and compatible with the surrounding uses. At this higher density, approximately 535 units could be sited on DP 1. Alternately, redevelopment of the DP 1 parcel could accommodate up to 65,000 square feet of retail space at a 30% lot coverage ratio, taking the form of additional medium- 4 format and small, specialty shops space backing up against Logan. Although access %or would most likely occur off of 6thAvenue, the development of DP 1 could be integrated with the larger retail development occurring on the ROFO parcel. DP2 and DP4 These two parcels are both infill opportunities that exist when parking requirements for 4 the existing office buildings are reduced. Currently underutilized and serving for the most part as overflow parking areas for Boeing employees, the Plan envisions their redevelopment with 6-story office or lab buildings, consistent with the current development pattern. In some instances where new lab development is planned, surplus parking within existing garages could fully support new development, and allow for the creation of new,private >� open spaces or campus greens within the neighborhood. In order to create this surplus parking opportunity, the Plan assumes either that the four existing Boeing office buildings are sold to other users with market-based parking requirements or that Boeing provides new parking areas on the Plant to accommodate its employees. The Conceptual Plan illustrates the potential redevelopment of each of these parcels with laboratory uses, resulting in approximately 720,000 square feet of new space in four separate structures. Both DP2 and DP4 could accommodate two, 6-story structures containing 180,000 square feet each. A new 2-to 3-story parking garage would be constructed between the new buildings on DP2, and the additional parking needs would be provided by ear-marking a portion of the stalls within the 10-20 parking garage. On • Page 7 of 9 October 3,2005 I S a vaif DP4, sufficient surplus parking exists within the existing 10-18 parking garage that no new parking would need to be constructed in this location. Alternately, either DP2 or DIM could also be redeveloped with new office uses. Given the greater parking requirement for office space (3.5/1,000)when compared to lab space (1/1,000),less development is able to be accommodated on the parcels. On DP2, a single, 6-story structure would be developed, containing 120,000 square feet. New structured parking would be developed behind. On DP4, approximately 300,000 square feet could be constructed in two, 6-story buildings, with all parking still provided within the existing 10-18 building garage. a DP3 This parcel is located just south of the 10-18 office building, at the corner of 6th and Park Avenues. The Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses, in both cases housed within a single 6-story structure. If developed as lab space, the building could contain approximately 180,000 square feet, supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on DP2. If developed as office space, a building of approximately 120,000 square feet could be constructed on site,with parking either provided in a new garage on DP3 or accommodated by providing additional parking levels within a DP2 garage. Alternately, the DP3 parcel could accommodate up to 24,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space, fronting on Park Avenue and offering amenities to the surrounding workers and residents. Although no redevelopment of the land on the other side of Park Avenue is envisioned as part of this Conceptual Plan,redevelopment of DP3 could also lead to other improvements along Park Avenue at key intersections. It is envisioned that, if developed with retail uses, DP3 would begin to meet the increased demands for amenities and services that redevelopment along the 6th Avenue corridor would require. Summary Redevelopment as illustrated within this Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the City's Urban Center-North vision and long-range planning policies, creating a vibrant, mixed-use corridor on the north side of 6th Avenue and along Park, with mid-rise buildings fronting the streets and structured parking behind. If new development took the form of multi-family and laboratory space, the corridor would contain a total 535 new multi-family units and 900,000 square feet of new lab space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the corridor. I I i1 Page 8 of 9 !� October 3,2005 I I • a Nee Economic Benefit Analysis Summary 4 Boeing's Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B seeks to both allow for the near-term redevelopment of Boeing's underutilized assets while advocating for a mix of uses that significantly improves the City's tax and employment base. Two economic benefit analyses (Exhibit 4)have been completed to support this submittal, demonstrating the potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (1) Development illustrated within the Planning Diagram on the ROFO portion of the Sub-District(beginning in 2007); and (2) Development illustrated within the Planning Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2007 for DP 1 and in 2016 for DP 2—DP 4). The economic benefits to the City of Renton associated with the redevelopment of the ROFO portion of the site can be summarized as follows: • By 2008 (project stabilization), it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be • created in the City of Renton alone; of this job total, 859 direct jobs would be located within the development and 202 would be indirect City jobs; ■ The City is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly$667,000 during redevelopment of the parcels; • The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly$856,000, beginning in 2008. The economic benefits to the City of Renton associated with the redevelopment of the Boeing Remainder portion of the site(DP 1 —4) can be summarized as follows: ait • By 2013 (project stabilization), it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be 111 created in the City of Renton alone if this portion were developed with 41 multifamily and lab uses as illustrated on the Conceptual Plan; of this job total, 1,700 direct jobs would be located within new buildings and 400 would be indirect City jobs; • Under this same set of land use assumptions, the City is estimated to gain one- time revenues of more than$6.2 million during redevelopment of the parcels; • The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly$2.3 million,beginning in 2013. N Slaw N Page 9 of 9 October 3,2005 a N _ _ __ . , ,: . __, _, __ iiiii• X: ',.1v: 'r-'-..;;;:./•:-1.:',-,, mss; _4 , 1i • fl . - t a' Sub-District ..4;-,,-:-'• . ' 1 ' ' :� J. ... �� ....:.: ice',»'" L �r^.3,.e•- _zpe �er.T 2F ra ; rT-'•-.[�;re-4.--:•,13..,1.• •y, IC 4fif ,\\\Sub-District Ngik -.------,;,-„,-...--;;;-----.:-;--- ..---..-1,-,_-_...-..„.,.• i \., i 4i ,rte �. -� u ^ m ex I=MIN IIIM IM x 3 . , G GG D . .. . : . ,. . . .. _JrilIJ •i•.. s� ate... r gw, / mil .,_ff 111 .■ ' • O is tr/ issi III 1 , 111 NNE 111 — N 4th St. . 1 .43 !I lir: .1.11.: \%illirirr/ 1 I Al E. /2 464'- ta .-----1:. ' cv I.Z IM id to Viiit - / . - �r � il� r.sa — 1 ..111 ■N! sIIIiI,�: ' . —i lit Eii] : Car, f illF .' asa.� �� s,nt A —tel m a�IA � a�r.� �i�� _2.,...., Airport i _. ... Way \IIkJ42 � 1.1'1" ir•summo 17 ii ii ,, to ., . . =fit j ii1C= a tool— z: ii i .A. -,,: Jrban Center North District Sub S. areas ..,..-.. .Districts Subject to Conceptual Plan Approval +• Note:District boundaries include dedicated R-O-W • Oit ti,D) 0. iDevalopmc (.Neighborhoods sad StrategicPlanning Ala}Pislick Ad�sfbietttmr • •- Exhibit _ 1 • o. -' .' ,,,t,.. ,./.„ - - "7,i".",. 1....-n ''' ' •,,,,,,,,,.,•••• 4, ''..iiit ,.,1''' ,..^ ''..' .. ,'"'`,.:,:,... '',.• ....--- „,,,,„,(' t'I '41"4:4,,,,,''''',,,":4 'A t''I,' .„,,‘, ' , ' '4P0 .'.'1'.',',...',..t' '..----,1,--- - . ,,'-v. :--,-. ,-._\ -, ,,..., ,,---,,--,,,,-' ,:.,.'.4, '+;.,,,;,',.9'', ",,,'''•1,1",:”' ,..„#4.1,4,, ',' 4...."„...."4,5,` '' 4.....4'' :•:',, 'ji'::-'''' ' • '*.' tr.1;*:41T7: L.:' . j4.,""rr.,,.;:e.':;;S'',./C;Wt5!,',''''''A' ''',,,,^e'I..' ' ' \ 't'' '4' ' ' . ': ri '4",'I,'••411)114,1 ,C,,1 ,r..,`t r",,,, 0,• tt,,O. '",.•Net4trgY.f•Or s', , ,',4 , ''',..r•'•-•,;'..4 4...,'',;,-• ".,J "'•,4,,„,,,,,.•,.., ,,,,.,,,,.,,,\*.4:,,:,•,<,,-,- 1 sy,,,:i.:, ,, , ,,,, . ;, , ,,,,„%.,,, .,'." iirr,'",•-, - ,r,. s'.. "`‘007",',‘ " ' '1"" ,, '. •••'''';`,'.,„ •' • .."''''' ''Vi01:t •••. k ',", ‘„N,,,,',.;.34 .....,..;:•,..-4,- , I.. ., ,„ %, , ,,,,m.;.#0,",,,f", ,:, - ,,, ..i ,'lir' - ••.:,,,,. .,z4., ,I...7(i4..'1,,,4,..,:its,,,, , ,-., ,' - . . , ...,...._....., -",, •,,,•:',,,.. e.1.,,'•:.+,•-.. 1,i \ c.-- ''''' • -,`., --'••04k4',8;',4014',. .1'1 ,i';••,1 ,i,.,,,P, ,,,I. , , , ,,,,, ..1 11 'L.‘ 0, t‘N,, • ,,),= -',,4. ,.,4'4..',\‘,0,,,',,,i'' --4' -"'"' _, .,..,"'",-.7,-.,''' -' 'J, , ' 1 4t l'4 `'".'''' ''''';41.'.1!'' ','' , 4,,'!.Ft.r.'',:o.,.' ;•, 't•1 ' ,„ „ ,...., . . . •••v,f,. ,---'--'-`17)-:-.--* '', ,"4'0'3,101ts,Aric - '• .`",, 1,4', i...4.4<11 't,'.• • 1.„ ,,,,..,:-.,,,,t..!,+0$11,.,t,..!' 47",''" ----'",,,,,-;.,....-','" . 4`4*,''''''''!4,10"'':';'*-...",+.'-':' a'''''''''''' ;" **7**';-**'''*''':.,4,, .!. ''.la :':',:'?4',i,,'' , ,4, . 4i,.*1‹11',';',,,,,'fa:"..1!, *;t4:`, '24,ktj'' ,*'.1., „.. ,'*"' "' ;,•• '' 'r'' •;..,,!,,..„,q,„••;,.4.-vi, , .,_.j..,,,,..;‘,...,. ',,...... „ vr,;,,,,..Jrc.•:,,,0 i'''‘',;';;:ii,'•'' , . Xor`..:4,'":4,4 f4i1 I `''''' ''•4 .‘"*". '' ; t4' ' `.4*';''''':17.,''''''''At'''...'''''i'.‘' ' ,,,,,,V,":,'i '-7 It: ji‘r ' '' . ''''''' l'' '' s'''''l t'7''''"i6'''''''''f'?7"'il''' ' : ''' ' ... \IY?:•:64''' ',— ,''.4'L3' . ' '''1.' .;M.,c,".42';01 t:i'q ' , '%*.t.,,l 'A,,„ff;V;mt-,4,04.,',•„,,,-, -,1."?.,,yi,ca;', ,„ , '*-7,!n,,. !,,„ '.i,3,' .:, -1-6 ' ,-,,,••,. \ , L.A.*.?",,,,,,,gL„,..A" .. ', '. ,', - ''' . ",'''''''''''''' ' ' r-''," ''''''" '''''' '''''''':'44,4 '1A5‘4.•:.";"'''''''' • :•'/..",",'11"."• ' •,';'•'.44JJ Voti,44"""-''-. '. - ' , ...le ''.,..''4,'„'",4,,$,tit„,,),,,‘,,'"• ,'OX;‘,1'•''‘', , ' , ' '',14,CI ,.' ' 1 ill " ''''',',''"''''''f'Pt */#'`''' ' ' ' ',,,'''1'.::,,4!,''' "'' A`44 '.*7:Yittt4kfr'fr,'-' • 14 '''''i'.1, •.... I '': '''''' ''',..%4‘*:,,'...'"'k'si t'N't,'•,I,...4.2%-!"..e. 0';',':0'.,%Z,•" ,', 1 ' " • i .,'te rtatql Ite.) ' ' .."'. :'. .;'''''''' X`4.4'•'0).2' '''',:t;'".',;,1i:.,;'',i,"y'' '4,',V;',.',',i„f, , 'A,,• ..,:',..,.,,,,,v,,, (I) 1 ,. , 4•4''.''', ,,,, ",''''''•- '' . „,..," A,‘. C ,44,,,,t1r,4,L, ;..7,1.,'" ,,,,,,..,, o,,Pt:r."•''''',,411,5•7•ErY... .,,?0,:i,,,,,„0,... ,,;',-,4!tr,,,,,,,,,,,..:., ,,,,-,,,,,,,,,„-.,,,,,,-.1,,,„,,,,,,,,v- -,,,,,,,,,":,, .4,,,, -.,,,,,,,,`,:,- ,• 'I, ‘- `',:f40„;';',1,I,',.k2 ',4' 1" '."'. - Iii ,..,:-7;`,i,•,,,1:,,,...?:!.., c--.'', ,, .. :',.-:-.1,2',',;,,':',,,,,'-'4-',:::1'• 'f,',- ,,,;,.,41;,,,',.,',?,c,',.. tA'""•1- ''" L'f1,41 ,,'' „. -,,'' ,t1„ '' •-,-,.. ' '‘' ,',Aec,...,„„..,r,;,-, ,r.:- „ c 4, J.,','-1/'t,'••1,,,," ' J,'', ' ''' , j '•''• "'• -",.''•/" ''^'•'', ,'r '44,rm." ,J,'",, A i'. t..,41. , • .,..., 0 ' ' ..`.:‘;. : ‘‘ . -,4'it,,.,1,,,. ' ' ,:'''''•,. '.', . ' cu — :_.,,4'1.-.' - '''',.7.',..,.:".1'.% k',:, • ' ' . ., '...-.;•!:.•,,:.•,','1,,"..'4,,.`" , ':i.i,i'li.:`,„:.,',''',,l'' . 11'I' '""'L. ,..4"-kt', " - -..,., . '<,•••,' '' .,..t.‘'.. Neo ' '..‘.,,,, : , , ..f:D • . ,,,. „,,,,„,••• - 2, „,.,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.„..•. ..,-..,,,.,...,,-„:_---,-,: ...,--.. ..... 0 as ?,,,,-..,,,,,,.'.- 0:',...710 - 0,,,va,,,,,,,,,x,,,,44....,,,,,ner. '''.,:4'-'!,fir,•,),,., ,•,',- -- ' 6- .c ,.-7r-----.-T—,--4-.,.-,-,,-,- ."--.,7-....7 '' ', ' -,:f. ''',',-.4.,;..,:...:: ,.. .-,,! 1,•t',.0ry ,•,k-7,-. .40, U) ,P"'• r', • JJ, ,••'4", 1 • / -140,t` '''''' .4,* •,,l',,,7;;;;,:;0,04...„,,,,, *' ..,f. t.," ,,,''I'1.1',,,....',.•;,',.;...,".,;,'',I,,, ' "-“‘",***":',' i- ,T'';,'.ir, ''; , l',' _fill• .C.) '5,1'7'' 4:'.1';' 4.'""•,4''''"? ri.iti 0 ,; • ,,1 ,j,''''''/J. '',•",j'0,,j1,4,;'•' • ,. •''tr, 42) '17.,J '',„4 ",,,,-,,,,,, .i.4', — i co ..,kie t'.7p .. ,', , YN, I %, , , . ,. ,,,:::;;;I(' ',,..‘`'''‘ '''';',';`',"' '','' V '''"'•'-`;•-','''','' '4,'PS; 4(„I'•J,,,,,1-,,,,, 4,,,',,,J- ''1. ,',• c ';.„,,,,•`,'1,4,1 -"Jr .. co U) '‘-' '''',",,4'-',,,4„4","`" J x ,,,, :',. '\ „St ;44.''''+';j,J,. L''' :1"\i`t!?$'" -.'`''''''''''''""7Y4.•1. ,-t, Vi",'''..,-,,,,,-••?;:$1.1.144ti,4;1•4',' ' i,tr'',",j4L't c.. •••• ',,,,r,ijr44,4,00,14 ', 6 ''l'14k,l.tit. ,;4'f,;•,'" //4:,„,...r44,., .„.:, J••t ' , • ,J•, • --•' J,.,.,'.'•...‘-''' .','",:/.'k,,''''''f'`' ',,,,t; vilki. ' ' ',,,,,ds,,tf.l..'%if:,..,\,t,, l'''1, .”,, -, ' ... 4.''''.14".44,4711114;: t;f°-,'`,,'-','1,',. E '--.1.-7-,*'.444i1 -'. - ,,,,,• , , ‘Itt--..Q 46.1-0,1)(,-„ 0 4.65' ' ' '..),,,,, ' ,4.', ,r.4...,,,-., ;,,„:, .. , , ' - . , ' ,.,. ., rt,','‘',10,,t0,0t47 r,,,i,.''1,,,..:".,1',!: CI) ' '''','*';':' '' ''-''''''e,;' '''‘-',"''.i';'/-'I't 44 •';',"‹J''•,- J4'$', 4'C',rt''', ••°•" "!'•'\ , • ,,,,rt, ''4'4,.',C'''''''''1440;%7 ',,,,41:,, *"•t,..-,,:f-,7',F,004.,',4,. , cc ?it,„74,„1,,i, -,, Ir,.,1 i '''. 1,p.,,_,...ki• ..,,,,,,' ,1,... ,, ,t, ,.. .,., = 45:fOrt LI. r ,.'of,,,,„..,'' - ,,,,,,r„'„,...,.. ,4.,,,,T„ •4,. ,%,;,.,.,0,,,i, •',,,• ' `;',''' l'•t/ r'•' , ''''WO'''**''"'• ' r '•J ,411\1,4,t'A k'''';' ."•' '" r ,It.1, (4) .1",,,,,,'“. ""-• ' CU ""' , i 0.- ,.' r,,'•••,.'"`,pa,,k• ,,,, -a'• 1,..,,,;',,,, I 4,.q ,„ L - ,;?,....:A.,--- , 4:.,Ptot;11',1?,1,44,;:,;',..;,:$01,t. ' ,,3,, ., ; '• I,' ';',` J,,',,'"4"''' ''' ' 1.,"4• 0 tv ,if'?AV 0.,,,,.. o ,r,t,','..'','•. f r.' ,4. '14 "4.4'0. 7 1 ''''''.., ,,.' .,,•',-.1) ,, ,r,/.. ' ,,,,,,,,,:pvm,,if,V ',,,09,ftitlifi",,,,";,,,, ';'72.,,A., ' , ;,..'.,, x v.. rck4,,",54 i';17,,N, , ,,,, CO ...q,1,:,,,l'irt*,, 'q.::it'' 14'4' •,14.,.:c t - :kt 1 •'-ii i,i'.' ' , '' . ' /.„ ii,;JiV,,:'''Peti.0.4ifilt !!;,•, ..',,,t:j:"i';.';,/,.?',.,4''•'3.'" ; -7"r'''',;''-';','"*;., -- , • ' , „I ',:',"0:', C‘1 r.',:':::!!lr''%,„, ,01.el.:1 '1 J1';',116' ''',', 1.7i, '1,1 t,o,,, 14:i '''',,,° : - I., '.1/4. ' 13itiltrji:e10114°1+;‘,Kif,/;1;144,;, i ' ;,, ',V,.,''' '' --''4'r:::7', ---''''-''""---"'''''''' . ' , '. ' ''' le t• -" '---4'.0,- , „, 4041,4;i , Mt, , Ik'I',,, :. '4„,t..,,,' ,,,,,,,,i,067.,„,g,i,,' 0 zoik,pikei,,tviky,,,,... ",., ,,„„,t,,,,,,:on :!ilairmr,...wit..„,4,.-v.:1;n,.747.7.0,7v!;,‘;‘,,,,,,,,,,;If..,;;,,,,,#. • , ,,,,,,, ,-,-.5, 4,`",44.--.4,',..,44, 411!-•`itipt ''''JJ '1, ' ''‘, ''' ''''''' ''IlEii,,Vti'f'';',';,:it'',jri,,,;);$14',' ',,;',P ' '''; '',1'' L ft it„';'.' '''''''41 4 'l'r"' ''.I,L'' ,'''''''''',1''"'V,44..'n',, -,'", ' ; ',,,,,..: .,„, ..,„...„ , '',..-47..4..,,,, ,,r,•,:4,,,-.„,,-.41,,,tt,.. ... 'Ak':,,,ri,. .. ,' lit.4-f']1',.-A2',1',,t,..1,1:t';[,4,1',`,'4,:i.,,-.4%.:, , ,''.,.- 1, i,- , Y '''' " ;$0,1,.. '. ''i t,''',,,,r‘'''''.!:',',,'40.1. 0,--;, -„,,A,,,Irt.'.:f''.r.,,,-'-',,,,..''',1,i',..' ' ,..,ir,'",•!::: •,-'',,,4,,""";,,:i.le„,,,,,ii).?...r_rr.,44,-,,,.'—.9..„4111,k,45,_ ''' , \ 1.'., .., ,,,,,•,:::,,,-,';',',.:'',';,',7,p, ,...,..•::'z'r.-,mr... " i, -,•,',,,r,-'4'- 'c ? . t''''I :'',,'''-4",'';''';',."4";"''1 -J-c.,,,-fr'„..! ,''',,i,14:',,,,',..-'. 'I,,'.:',,k,i'..'.`,';',,. .,P, '',. •;,. . '7-..44,,,,E„ .''' ''i ". ''I '''.''''''''''',4 rP'iri',;.AS ,,„)."'..4!4'01k',1'ilf .','`'.'" 4**,44.49 ,'`I', ' i,`,"","' J,' 7. ''''•'' """' ' ' ' ' ' '','',".7`''''"/''',, ,",,,-, ' ' ''./..-•'-'''''':",J,7"7-'''''ilN,„..,''f',7•,' -1,,,' '''•',,,,,,-$144A,r'', : '' ,;"'" ;,, ,,,`,„;• ''•:put,' ;•-•,• ,-'r",''J'''''' , ' ,j"^ , • ' ' • 4 . , • • 4 13 13 F 14 i 1 SIL . SU-1 ., .a I tvA ' t t:�. �iFM f ir....., Z I - i3tSc. -b . t 0- 0 �, i C OV H -- niapOSib4 4.45.44. Magikta Ma-AW: MINVIIIM Z$ R { p ' .. ___(-1� LAMAIN SWIM MOCK t 4 I 3 j I ' is :`..: '. TMa- - _- - ;� oak - it ma ata j o t0.9tf8 Baa a PROPOSED ARTERIAL RIG TS: OF WAY TO S tT : y8 T 2 '....,„:'...1*:', LDOU ) EXHIBIT n.. f I 3 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY R WANWA BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY RENTON,WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation(BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic 1 benefits of redeveloping certain Sub District 1-B property under option by Harvest Partners at its Renton, Washington facility into additional retail land uses. This "right of first option" (ROFO) property is the Phase II expansion of Harvest Partners' development underway on Boeing's Renton Sub District 1B property The ROFO Phase II land area being considered for redevelopment as retail space by Harvest Partners is comprised of 21.20 net acres. It is only a portion of the 1 50.70 gross acres that comprises Boeing's entire Sub District 1-B Renton property. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton the economic benefits derived from Harvest Partners redeveloping this target ROFO property if fully developed as follows: Retail—Shop Space 91,000 Retail—Big Box 135,000 • Total 226,000 Sq.Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if Harvest Partners excises i their option to purchase the targeted Renton Boeing parcels. The benefits are measured by comparing the full redevelopment of this property as retail uses between 2006 and 2008 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured (one-time and recurring)in terms of: D Jobs D Income D Property values D Public revenues State of Washington King County City of Renton I I {Deleted:91232005 9/26,209k Page 1 I I I f I 14111 II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping Harvest Partners ROFO parcels f into retail space are only as valid as the underlying assumptions.' These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions. It is the culmination of a series of computer-based 1 sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of the Boeing Renton Sub 1 District 1B property into retail uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts 1 and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2008 between "redevelopment" of the 1 Harvest Partners ROFO parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: > By 2008(project stabilization), an estimated 1,667 jobs would be created if 1 the target 21.20 acres comprising Harvests Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District l-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into shop space and big box 1 retail uses.2 1 > Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 808 indirect jobs would be created by 2008. . > These jobs would generate an additional $ 80 million in recurring annual 1 income at full occupancy in 2008. 1 > Of this income total, nearly$45 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B ROFO parcels and over$35 million in 1 indirect income would be created in 2008 and thereafter. 1 D The corresponding increase in property values for the Harvest Partners 1 ROFO parcels is forecast at nearly$53 million by 2008. ' 'Although not guaranteed,the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 dollars. 2 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting(induced)from expenditures associated with direct job creation. (-Deleted:9232005 1 • 9/26/200, Page 2 1 1 1 i �Yrr► D The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2008 to the State of Washington is estimated at nearly $5.1 million. This is in addition to nearly $3.8 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of the additional retail space on the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of Harvest Partners redeveloping this excess Boeing property in Sub District 1-B are now summarized: D By 2008, it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-B. Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 202 indirect City jobs would be created by 2008. D The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly $667,000 during redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO Sub District 1-B parcels. D The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly$856,000 in 2008 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new retail space. 'fir Table 1 summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2006 through 2008 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over$66,000 during land development and over $601,000 during construction of the retail shop and big box space. Sources for these municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the retail space is completed and absorbed (2008 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at nearly$856,000. Nearly $187,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. Annual sales taxes generated from the retail space is estimated to exceed $584,000. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $58,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over$26,000 annually. Deleted:9232005 4.26 20(F; Page 3 I I Table 1 I CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS I HARVEST PARTNERS SUB DISTRICT 1-B I One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2006=2007 In 2008 I CITY JOBS - Direct Jobs 42 92 859 I Indirect Jobs 16 39 202 Total Jobs 58 131 1,061 I ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income S 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 $ 44,657,600 Indirect Income S 678,445 $ 3,384,707 $ 8,889,439 I Total Income $ 2,799,475 5 12,817,427 S 53,547,039 CITY TAX REVENUES I Property Tax S 186,873 Sales Tax S 66,379 S 295,201 $ 584,225 Employee Head Tax $ 58,346 I Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 $ 26,325 Total Tax Revenues $ 601,458 S 855,769 I Chart 1 shows that 1,061 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the 1 City of Renton. Of these, 859 would be direct on-site jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 202 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This • 1 assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the Harvest 1 Partners ROFO property in Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B area. I Chart 1 I i City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2008 1 1,200 10)61 800 I 400 1 1 With Project Without Project Deleted:9232005 , 9/26/200 Page 4 I I 41.0 I I I I Noe Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $54 million. This corresponding po g income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2008 and thereafter. Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 2008 S60 554 E, S40 ra a 520 - I S. With Project Without Project Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2008, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from$8.6 million to nearly$61.3 million—an increase of$52.7 million. Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2008 REDEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PROPERTY I Without Project $8.6 I With Project $61.3 I I I 3 $0 $25 $50 $75 1 Dollars in minions --- — -- tDeleted:9/132005 —__ J I 9/26/2005: Page 5 I I i 1 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of nearly $668,000 during the estimated 2006 through 2007 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly 1 receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B property starting in 1 2007. This will increase until 2008 where it peaks at nearly $856,000 as an ongoing annual cash flow to the City. Chart 4 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues ' $1,000,000 ' a sso0,000 a t $600,000 Recurring ■Onetime C4 5400,000 U $200,000 III I 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 I I I I I I I I I I Deleted:9/23/2005 I ! I 9,,262c% Page 6 I . I I I I I L ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY ISTRICT 1 _Fr _ A�_ �' E € EP r _ °i ` ON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation(BRC)is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping four parcels in Boeing Sub District 1-B at its Renton, Washington facility into a new mix of lab and multi-family land uses. The land area of these redevelopment parcels comprises 12.85 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres comprising Boeing's Sub District 1-B Renton property. The proposed new land use mix for these four Boeing redevelopment parcels 2 resulted from an evaluation of the holding capacity of these excess properties and from market potential considerations. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton economic benefits derived from redeveloping these four targeted Boeing Renton parcels if fully developed as follows: Lab 900,000 Multi-Family 535,500 Total 1,435,500 Sq. Ft. low The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if the targeted Renton Boeing parcels are entirely redeveloped and absorbed between 2008 and 2013 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured(one-time and recurring) in terms of: ➢ Jobs ➢ Income ➢ Property values ➢ Public revenues State of Washington King County City of Renton 1 II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping the four Boeing Renton parcels comprising 12.85 net acres into modern lab and multi-family space are only as [Deleted:9/23/2005 _-.-- I 9/26/2OO Page 1 1 I I i ■ valid as underlying assumptions.' These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment gement reflects these assumptions and is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the four Boeing Renton parcels into the proposed uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2013 between "redevelopment" of the four Boeing parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: ➢ By 2013 (project stabilization), an estimated 3,300 jobs would be created if 1the target 12.85 acres comprising four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into lab and multi-family uses.2 > Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped lab buildings and 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by 2013. 3 > These lab jobs would generate an additional $ 158 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2013. void ➢ Of this income total, over$88 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B parcels and over $70 million in indirect income would be created in 2013 and thereafter. I ➢ The corresponding increase in property values for the four target Renton redevelopment parcels is forecast at over$550 million by 2013. III > The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2013 to the State of Washington is estimated at over $3.6 million. This is in addition to over $33.5 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of new lab and multi-family space on the four Boeing parcels at the Renton Sub District 1-B site. 'Although not guaranteed,the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 dollars. 2 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation 3 resulting(induced)from expenditures associated with direct job creation (Deleted:9232005 - N I 9126/200i, Page 2 a I I I bar IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of redeveloping Boeing's four parcels 1 of excess property in Sub District 1-B are now summarized. > By 2013,it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1 1-B. Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the new lab buildings and 400 indirect jobs in the City would be created by 1 2013. > The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time tax revenues of over$6.2 million during redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. > The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of over$2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new lab and multi-family space. 1 Table 1 summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during 1 development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2008 through 2012 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over$40,000 during land development and over $6,168,000 during construction of lab buildings and multi-family structures. Sources for these one-time municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. 11 Once the lab and multi-family buildings are completed and absorbed (2013 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at over $2,343,000. Nearly $1,953,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $115,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $275,000 annually. I a i (Deleted:9/232005_. .. - I 9/26/2004 Page 3 I I I I i Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2008-2012 in 2013 CrrY JOBS 1:. Direct Jobs 25 381 1,700 Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2,100 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income S 1,285,625 S 49,960,680 $ 123,146,400 111 Indirect Income S 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ 17,596,700 Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 2 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax S 1,952,593 Sales Tax S 40,234 $ 3,049,318 S Employee Head Tax $ 115,4% Real Estate Transfer Tax S 3,118,965 S 275,071 Total Tax Revenues S 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,160 Chart 1 shows that 2,100 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these,000 would be direct on-site lab jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an esti ted 400 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of 3 Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. 1100i Chart 1 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 2 3,000 2,100 a 2,000 1,000 With Project Without Project a (Deleted:9/23/2005 9;26/2003, Page 4 $11 *41111810 0 I Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City 9 of Renton estimated at nearly $141 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2013 and a thereafter. Chart 2 j New Job Annual Income in 2013 S150 S141 3 E $100 a 0 0 gS50 a S With Project Without Project 3 Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the • four Boeing parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2013, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from under$74 million to nearly$624 million—an increase of$550 million. Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2013 BOEING SUBDISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS Without Project $73.7 With Project $623.8 I I I $0 $200 $400 $600 Dollars in millions (Deleted: 9/26/2005, Page5 yrrr Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of over $6,208,000 during the estimated 2008 through 2012 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly �. receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the four Sub District 1-B parcels starting in 2009. This will increase each year until 2013 where it peaks at over$2,343,000 million as an annual flow into the City. Chart 4 I New City Of Renton Tax Revenues $3,000,000 $2,000,000 ■Recurring B Onetime 1-1 S1,000,000 Nad 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 a a 3 a (Deleted:9/232005 a I 9/26/2005, Page 6 7 vir P per,. Table 1 D CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS i FOUR BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS 0BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2008-2012 in 2013 i CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 1,700 Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2,100 X ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ 123,146,400 11 Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ 17,596,700 • Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 g CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 1,952,593 Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ - zu Employee Head Tax $ ' 115,496 f eal Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ 275,071 4 **Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,160 i HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS a BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY , il One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2006-2007 in 2008 CITY JOBS 01 Direct Jobs 42 92 859 Indirect Jobs 16 39 202 Total Jobs 58 131 1,061 ANNUAL INCOME gi Direct Income $ 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 $ 44,657,600 Indirect Income $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 $ 8,889,439 a Total Income $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 $ 53,547,039 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 186,873 raSales Tax $ 66,379 $ 295,201 $ 584,225 Employee Head Tax $ 58,346 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 $ 26,325 'T",tal Tax Revenues $ 66,379 $ 601,458 $ 855,769 FINAL—Combined Benefits—Rev 1 P 9/26/2005 COMBINED ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS & BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2006-2012 in 2013 I CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 67 473 2,559 Indirect Jobs 25 198 602 Total Jobs 92 671 3,161 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 3,406,655 $ 59,393,400 $ 167,804,000 Indirect Income $ 1,089,693 $ 38,347,461 $ 26,486,139 Total Income $ 4,496,348 $ 97,740,861 $ 194,290,139 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 2,139,466 Sales Tax $ 106,613 $ 3,344,519 $ 584,225 I Employee Head Tax $ 173,842 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,425,222 $ 301,396 Total Tax Revenues $ 106,613 $ 6,769,741 $ 3,198, I i I I I FINAL—Combined Benefits—Rev1P 9/26/2005 d TOTAL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING & HARVEST PARTNERS PARCELS ` COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IN SUB DISTRICT 1-B t% City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 Y� 4,000 3,161 3,000 * 2,000 1,000 With Project Without Project _ New Job Annual Income in 2013 $200 3194 I 3150 0 $100 350 With Project Without Project New City Of Renton Tax Revenues 34,000,000 83,000,000 1111111111.1111911 aIIuIiIi 31,0000 s_ iisir �rrr 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 FINAL—Combined Benefits—Revs P 9/26/2005 The data and calculations presented herein while not guaranteed,have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. REAL ESTATE ECONOMICS AMPOVED BY �! COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CiTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT /14005- :`' 40 Date November 14,2005 Boeing Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan (Referred October 17, 2005) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Conceptual Plan proposed by The Boeing Company for the potential redevelopment of 50.7-acres of Boeing property in the South Lake Washington area known as Subdistrict 1B with the conditions outlined below. The northern 21.2 acres of the property is expected to become surplus and brought forward for redevelopment in the immediate future. This property is under a "right of first refusal" agreement with Harvest Partners, the owner and developer of the 46 acres of property formerly owned by Boeing immediately adjacent to this property to the north. Boeing proposes that this intial parcel be developed with as much as 270,000 square feet of retail. The remaining property is expected to be retained by Boeing for five to 10 years. However, upon redevelopment, as much as 900,000 square feet of lab and/or office, as well as some additional retail and multi-family housing, could be developed in and around the 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings, which are anticipated to be sold and re- occupied by other companies. To enhance the plan and its consistency with the Vision and Policies for the Urban Center—North adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions should be imposed on the Conceptu li it) Plan: 1) That Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian-oriented Street," to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the subdistrict and the planned retail/entertainment center expected to he developed to the north, and 2) That a transit facility would be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if funding for such a facility emerged and it could be developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail and employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned Conceptual Plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. 4'4.- Terri Briere,C1uncil President cc: Alex Pietsch Gregg Zimmerman Neil Watts14110 Jennifer Henning Nancy Weil ti`SY O PLANNING/BUILDING/ es PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • MEMORANDUM• DATE: October 27, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: --),1,1" Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerma ministrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACT: Jill Ding(ext. 7219) SUBJECT: Sub-district 1-B Planned Action Ordinance ISSUE: Should the City of Renton adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance prepared by The Boeing Co., which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan 4.0 Amendment Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)completed in October of 2003? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Boeing, Co. is requesting approval of planned action legislation, which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October 2003. The approval of planned action legislation would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing environmental documentation, as allowed by RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315. As a result of approving planned action legislation, the applicant would be required to submit an environmental consistency analysis with each phase of the project and receive subsequent approvals from the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The consistency analysis would be required as individual master plans and/or site plans are proposed. In addition, the adoption of planned action legislation provides added entitlement and scheduling predictability as the developer begins to prepare for the redevelopment of the 51 acre site. Boeing submitted a conceptual plan prepared by Seneca Real Estate Group Inc., which indicates that the northern 31.2 acres of the property is expected to become surplus and brought forward for redevelopment in the immediate future. This property is under a "right of first refusal" agreement with Harvest Partners, the owner and developer of the 46 acres of property formerly owned by Boeing immediately adjacent to this property to the north. Boeing proposes that this initial parcel be developed with as much as 270,000 Page 2 of 2 October 27,2006 square feet of retail. The remaining property is expected to be retained by Boeing for 5 to 10 years. However, upon redevelopment, as much as 900,000 square feet of lab and/or office, as well as some additional retail and multi-family housing, could be developed in and around the 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings, which are anticipated to be sold and re-occupied by other companies. CONCLUSION: If the proposed Planned Action Ordinance were adopted by Council, the permitting process would be streamlined by utilizing existing environmental documentation. Akre h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev&plan.ing\jkd\issue papers\subdist1b.doc DRAFT 10/10/06 8:51 AM CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DESIGNATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT 1-B OF THE BOEING RENTON PLANT PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY LOGAN AVENUE N., GARDEN AVENUE N., NORTH 8TH STREET, AND 6TH STREET WHEREAS, RCW 43.21C.03I and WAC 197-11-164, - 168, and - 172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared to study the impacts of redeveloping a portion of Boeing's Renton Plant property, which EIS is titled the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS ("EIS"); and WHEREAS, the EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of mixed-use development on that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant known as Sub-District 1-B (see Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Employment Area — Industrial (EA-I), Employment Area — Transition (EA-T) and Employment Area Office (EA-O) to Urban Center North(UC-N); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance. No. 5027, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1); and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Boeing entered into a Development Agreement based on the analysis in the EIS, which is recorded under King County recording number ("Boeing Development Agreement") WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub- District 1-B ("1B Conceptual Plan"), attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-District 1B, which compares the proposed 1B Conceptual Plan to the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance designates certain land uses and activities within Sub- District I-B as "Planned Actions" that are consistent with the Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1) ter+ designation and zone; [03003-0166-000000/10869322_2.DOCI 1 ORDINANCE NO. Niue NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Purpose. The City of Renton declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Sub-District 1-B as "Planned Actions" consistent with state law, RCW 43.21C.031; and B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a Planned Action and how land use applications which qualify as Planned Actions within Sub-District 1-B will be processed by the City; and C. Streamline and expedite future land use permit review processes for development in the Sub-District 1-B area that is consistent with the 1B Conceptual Plan by relying on existing detailed environmental analysis for this area. SECTION II. Findings. The City Council finds that: A. The EIS addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the scenarios described in the EIS for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced therein, and the 1B Conceptual Plan is encompassed by and consistent with those Alternatives; and B. The mitigation measures contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, together with the City's development standards, and standard mitigation fees (Parks, Fire and Traffic), are adequate to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed IB Conceptual Plan; and C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance economic development; and D. Opportunities for public involvement have been provided as part of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation, the Boeing Plant rezone, the EIS, and the Conceptual Plan review and approval process for Sub-District 1-B. SECTION III. Designation of Planned Action; Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Establishing Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Designated. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the Sub-District 1-B site, as shown on Exhibit A, and associated off-site improvements. Uses and activities described in the 1B Conceptual Plan, attached as Exhibit B, subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and subject to the mitigation measures required by City Codes or contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, are designated Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.21.C.031. Additionally, the Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the proposed development on Sub-District 1B, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. [03003-0166-000000/1 0869322_2.DOCI 2 ORDINANCE NO. 400 B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. The Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees, and standards, shall provide the framework for a decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the EIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. Planned Action Threshold. 1. The land uses and development levels established by the IB Conceptual Plan, together with their customary accessory uses and amenities and associated off-site improvements, shall be considered Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.21.C.031. If amendments of the approved 1B Conceptual Plan exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the EIS, supplemental environmental review may be required under SEPA Rules. D. Planned Action Review Criteria. 1. The Director of Development Services, or the Director's designee, is 4010 hereby authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a), if the project application meets WAC 197-11-172 and all of the following conditions: a) The project is located on Sub-District 1-B, or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on Sub-District 1-B; and b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RCW 36.70A; and c) The Director has determined that the project's significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS by reviewing the environmental checklist or other project review form as specified in WAC 190-11-315; and d) The project complies with the Planned Action threshold described in this Ordinance; and e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Boeing Development Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees, and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for any significant environmental impacts associated with Sub-District 1-B development; and f) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been requested; and [03003-0166-000000/10869322_2.DOCI 3 ORDINANCE NO. liotow g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. E. Effect of Planned Action. 1. Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned Action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), or any additional review under SEPA. 2. Designation as a Planned Action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS. 3. Planned Actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA. However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. F. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they Now meet the criteria as Planned Actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: 1. Development applications shall meet the requirements of RMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SEPA checklist or revised SEPA checklist [where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)] or such other environmental review forms provided by the Planning/Building/Public Work Department. The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an application; 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. 3. If the project application is within Sub-District 1-B, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in section III of this Ordinance. 4. Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review, threshold determination, or EIS shall be required. looly 5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no notice is required. 103003-0 166-000000/10869322_2.DOCI 4 ORDINANCE NO. Nage 6. If a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe an appropriate SEPA review procedure consistent with City SEPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action. 7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the EIS, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the EIS. SECTION IV. Validity Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 31, 2030 by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of Planned Action requirements. Based upon this review, the Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another validity period may be specified. SECTION V. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any other ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. SECTION VI. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, *000 clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of June, 2006. /s/ BONNIE I. WALTON Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk (03003-0166-000000/10869322_2.DOC] 5 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006.. /s/KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: • [03003-0166-000000/10869322_2.DOCI 6 • Perkin Coie ft&-• 1201 Third Avenue,Suite 4800 Laura N.Whitaker V ® Seattle,WA 98101-3099 PHONE-206.359.8584PHONE:206. 8000 PAX: 206.359.9584 T Q ' 359 EMAIL:EMAIL: �� FAX:206.359.9000 1whitaker@perkinscoie.com ECA GR www.perkinscoie.com Grin oUP September 30, 2005 Mr. Neil Watts Development Services Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Boeing Renton Plant Redevelopment/Application for Conceptual Plan Nay and Planned Action Approvals for Subdistrict lB Dear Mr. Watts: As you know, the 2003 Development Agreement between the City and Boeing addresses the process by which land owned by Boeing and located within the UC-N zone may be segregated. Among other things, the Development Agreement provides that a Conceptual Plan must be developed and approved for certain "Subdistricts" prior to their segregation, which Subdistricts include "Subdistrict 1B," an area commonly known as the 10-80 site, Lot 10 and other Boeing-owned parcels east of Logan Avenue and south of 8th Street. Pursuant to the Development Agreement and guided by the development envelope established by the Environmental Impact Statement prepared in 2003 to disclose potential impacts of eventual Renton Plant redevelopment, Boeing has developed a Conceptual Plan for Subdistrict 1B (the "Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan" or "Conceptual Plan") and hereby submits it to the City for review and approval. As you will see, the Conceptual Plan is consistent with the overall densities assumed by the EIS for Subdistrict 1B. It is also consistent with the range of uses both allowed within the UC-N zone and assumed by the alternative, "mix-and-match" development scenarios analyzed in the EIS. [03003.0166/SB052700.215] ANCHORAGE • BEIJING BELLEVUE • BOISE CHICAGO • DENVER HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA • PHOENIX • PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates Ntwof Mr. Neil Watts September 30, 2005 Page 2 In addition to Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan approval pursuant to the Development Agreement, Boeing also seeks approval of Planned Action status for the Subdistrict IB Conceptual Plan pursuant to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the Renton Municipal Code. Boeing bases its Planned Action request on the fact that, subject to the development thresholds established by the Development Agreement and summarized below, environmental impacts of potential redevelopment of Subdistrict 1B have been fully disclosed for purposes of SEPA. Subdistrict 1B Planned Action/Summary of Conceptual Plan Consistency with 2003 EIS and UC-N Development Standards 1. Building Heights — Building heights proposed within Subdistrict 1B would not exceed maximum heights allowed in the UC-N 1 zone. It is anticipated that, relative to heights reviewed in the EIS, proposed increases in height greater than 10%would require additional SEPA review addressing aesthetics and shadows. Now 2. Transportation a) Trip Ranges: The range of trips proposed in the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan was reviewed in the EIS. b) Trip Threshold: The Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan proposes a level of trip generation and distribution consistent with levels analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that development which would exceed the maximum trip levels shown in the EIS would complete additional SEPA review. c) Road Improvements: The Planned Action would require on-site and off-site road improvements. These road improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that significant changes to the road improvement plan that have the potential to significantly increase impacts to air quality, water quality, fisheries resources, or noise levels beyond the levels analyzed in the EIS would require additional SEPA review. 3. Earth— The level of development proposed by the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan is consistent with development levels analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that a significant change in amount of grading assumed in the EIS which has the potential to N,,, adversely affect water quality or fisheries require additional SEPA review. 103003-0166/S13052700.2151 09/30/05 Mr. Neil Watts September 30, 2005 Page 3 4. Air Quality— The EIS addresses air quality impacts generated by traffic levels associated with redevelopment that are consistent with development levels proposed by the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan. It is anticipated that a significant change in configuration, increase in building heights, or significant decrease in setbacks between residential and manufacturing uses deemed to significantly affect localized air quality and odor conditions could require additional SEPA review. 5. Water— The level of development proposed by Subdistrict IB Conceptual Plan is consistent with development levels analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that the following changes by the Planned Action scenarios to the Alternatives analyzed in the EIS could require additional SEPA review: a) Change in peak flows to Johns Creek significantly exceeding the levels reviewed in the EIS. b) Increase in number of outfalls to Johns Creek or Lake Washington vrie relative to the number of required outfalls assumed in the EIS. 6. Public Services and Utilities — The level of development proposed by the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan is consistent with development levels analyzed in the EIS. It is anticipated that a significant increase in the number of square feet or dwelling units beyond the maximum number analyzed in the EIS could require additional SEPA review to address impacts to fire, police, schools, parks, water, wastewater or solid waste, as applicable. 7. Cumulative Impacts —When analyzed together with previously approved and currently proposed Subdistrict lA redevelopment, Subdistrict 1B development levels do not exceed the level of total development for District 1 analyzed in the EIS. For the reasons set forth above and in the proposed Subdistrict IB Conceptual Plan, we request that the City approve the Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan and designate the Conceptual Plan as a Planned Action for purposes of SEPA. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration of this request. voito [03003-0166/SB052700.215) 09/30/05 Mr. Neil Watts September 30, 2005 Page 4 Very truly yours, // 6A/1/,- U/�6ii Laura N. Whitaker TBH:tbh cc: Alex Pietsch Jeff Adelson Shaunta Hyde Laura Lohman [03003-0166/SB052700.215] 09/30/05 SENECA REAL ESTATE GROUP INC. vike Aiwa 4;41 jot - • • • • . -• 'I • Ai, 4,4 411114*,.. 411111ftv, 1 I Ni.r I S I I THE BOEING COMPANY I I I CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN SUB-DISTRICT 1-B a I S 3 I I I ■ i I Submitted to the City of Renton October 3, 2005 I I I I I I CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Sub-District 1-B Renton, Washington OIL Background The Boeing Company has been working with the City of Renton since early 2003 to revaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with its 737 facility in Renton, Washington(the"Renton Plant Site"). In December 2003, The Boeing Company and The City of Renton entered into a Development Agreement that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant Site, including: ■ Renton commitments to fund and construct certain public infrastructure improvements; • Boeing commitments to fund certain private aspects of redevelopment; and ■ Boeing commitments to complete Conceptual Plans when it elects to subdivide, develop, sell, or otherwise alter any property for uses not related to airplane manufacturing. 400 Per the terms of the Development Agreement, Conceptual Planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the Site, known as Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B, and District 2 (see Exhibit 1). City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in 3 October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the Site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. .r� Harvest Partners is currently refining its development plan for Sub-District 1-A, which is also sometimes referred to as both Lots 1 —4 and Lakeshore Landing. Harvest Partners' preliminary planning anticipates the development of an urban retail center containing approximately 800,000 square feet of retail, with the potential for additional hotel, office space and multifamily residential units. Construction of the retail project is anticipated to begin in 2006. Sub-District 1-B Sub-District 1-B is located immediately to the south of Lakeshore Landing, as illustrated on Exhibit 2, and totals approximately 50.7 acres, net of that portion which has been reserved for the extension of a four-lane 8th Avenue between Logan and Park Avenues. As is outlined within the 2003 Development Agreement, the construction of two new lanes along this segment of 8`t'is necessary to support the redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B (see Exhibit 3). Page t of 9 October 3,2005 a rr The City of Renton is currently completing its design for this segment of 8th Avenue, and expects to begin building at least the two northern-most lanes in March, 2006, simultaneous with the other infrastructure improvements necessary to support the redevelopment of Sub-District 1-A. Ultimately, two additional lanes (to the south) along this same segment of 8th will be required to support the redevelopment of District 2. Harvest Partners has a Right of First Offer to purchase a portion of the Sub-District which totals approximately 21.2 acres (see Exhibit 3). Harvest Partners has indicated .-their interest in developing this portion, known as the ROFO area, with retail uses that are complementary with the proposed development of Sub-District 1-A as an urban retail center. The development intent of the ROFO area as depicted with this Conceptual Redevelopment Plan is based upon feedback from Harvest Partners as to their proposed project and from The City of Renton as to their goals for redevelopment within the Urban Center North. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the"Boeing Remainder", as illustrated on Exhibit 2. Portions of the Boeing Remainder are currently improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.85 acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels("DP 1" through"DP 4") within this Conceptual Plan. kiew Submittal Included within this submittal are a narrative description of Boeing's proposal for Sub- District 1-B, a Conceptual Planning Diagram, and two economic benefit analyses demonstrating a range of potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (1) Development illustrated within the Planning Diagram on the ROFO portion of the Sub-District(beginning in 2007); and (2) Development illustrated within the Planning Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2007 for DP 1 and in 2016 for DP 2—DP 4). I Boeing seeks the City's approval of this Conceptual Plan so that it can complete a Binding Site Plan creating additional lots, and finalize negotiations with Harvest Partners related to the acquisition of the ROFO portions of the Sub-District. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder(with the exception of DP 1) is not currently envisioned to occur sooner than 5 to 10 years in the future. al iittio Page 2 of 9 October 3,2005 I 0. i.nr,.t tl111:allr : .,llf „11..1 1 r i t a .,Fk; S7by tir+K:, .yvt i 4 h) P'a ) 3 N.,N,, !.,. m" „,v14' '`,c,,41 ?' P F i ;"Y.o ,sr aay .wit. ' .?x •:7,1-.0,,3,v,r,;,, •,,,,: n ,br ..,g k � d F k ,p P ,� .�',� `5 •,:`A, ' '5.d{y^, mY',,..nr*..,r,': w ' LAKSHORE LANDING 80t0'�C sf,Urban Retell •. , r e ro k. , fi i } .+ Y... f}z'r"„,+{l1 z. 2'6 y�' s, v +,:, .,.,,,..„,...• x',, °a a 4i+r ,, W' }. (�T'1t A,-,' �� Y. t , �.,�� - r :•"";','"'''...:'-',-:','','"'''', s ,� , 4 .. . - rater - ,yfS Y+” �p k -�*x r "'.4 s 4, Vm :'4i 'G3 ,-,F J ', - '' • • J'''''''"- // //aye ma, ' r iF i, g ''' //// ////////1'ir/_� 1 • 4,00,.F,41'*"' .� //■///!// //////.. /i 2 ?fi �' //•/U/////////////// /////•//`, Mi aM1} r r r � ► B-.. n ,„-:„..p.-,, k� I CONCEPTUAL PLAN AREA at' PA z a t s a" , `kt ir4 Q ! ' � . Sufi-Distri t`�=B T A .a J'w�#, �f "Ta..:` .. .,y+a i„wG," ✓"'.t+5a , yr .. .� '� 3 4 . , x45 - T .,'-'''.'-r''' f r P y, �0LN .A' .^a�y"�" � t}k t 4'k 'f{,r� -,.-i,-'1.,'''""''''-.::-;,;...-.;.rA ',,,m ' .. ,k a -.'';;;14/.` 't k...":41P,',41",4";'*".� ' " .,,u-+ it "ki..t,�=�' - i >;�'+s.rx t,. i ., • :,o~." 'sy; k - "F s ' , t w: t��`4��PY,s w'4• i 'i.• i sr _ r9,4, ',-•,,9.,4i,,,-.1•,'•,,I,,..":.4 q, 1 t , 4 r, ,a .i' H•$• ? F a yk, - ,+ it ." y ,t'm , '' 1 1�a, i?, .•+, .. ,,,o.',.-,.-- „;,., 'J ' • >ceid. - � � �k' - 1 a w - ! 13 4 s1 ', r;M t 1 yt '1m i N d f' d. Iia ow°• s, P' ” � �;,� k 4� # ' v s u�a+'`A'N trf..-pi.,,t;, u$ F,i t k , Y y t ••,, .-- ..., ,'k '`:+,vf• n .,. .:0. fa: '4- �' » , wig :A-c.:',...1,,,!:'„g,..,,,,..., d, , ,,1' : a �;;. <, '''''''''' ':''',*,','..'.'''.7.',..4"', ',"'',4.,,','", '.�: , -. _huw '.�.` ..�. <., ,,,4 ,kf°°t�#a�",�'?�,�'i^ti:1',�,.:^;y'�'�`'�,�3;°.,� ,;.��°i. �,,�:., t,,.'�,�`� r r, r� . � - �• .. �`��`�2005 CONCEPTUAL PLAN CULLER SEARS B®EOA/ ARCHITECTS SUB-DISTRICT 1 -B R g - - r RT3-1frTHSTAE£1T w\ '€ ; s-� . MAX.30%LOT COVERA GE IF 1-STORY RETAIL ° it (270,000 SF) • - � c ` - t > „,,t,-,,,,,,,-,,..-: - EXIST DATA I (-----t.,--4„.t.1- 1 - , ry_� HUB i. . _” • ,' is N h . ' i''4 i'2,,(",i'''' ri: ' t-:-''-V14:4'-^''''''trsi,..7-',' c.r4'..-.,,--'',- ,.: 3 - , '''-, F.'.....i''- iit:-A:,yr-'...:5.-4- , �6� 5: s k _ t`r est .` g ,W 33 _ 6 � r,+ . IDP .' ,�—r (y�� - a 6 9! z 'w i . w. ` max ;. Dpi ' . .:. t.t..!?1` -,(,,--;A A ,� £ z f; NOT D P F orf . ( : .. � PAR �" -- t( ti,1 itit e - DP= pP-3 ° I 6.1IO UNITS MAX TWO MAX.ONE _ _ ACRE 6-STORY 6 STORY �'6 E (f� _ ,,, li yFAMILY LAB BLDG$. LAB BLDG _ ¢ 1" € E 01 . �`' • NTIAL -(360,000SF 80. SF) - ITS) T3TAL) 0 SHARED r` " ' , S PARKING IN DP-2 k._ t NEN€ GARAGE . AOT _' j.•fx 7-STORY YBWG. ^4' • 3 g s I E. KO E:.. - . :1:f -TWO (t .PART --- - - IiAAX�ONE - '" i - _ t720.b1T4.S r�tiY6LDG ''YST.'�{.x- $tom s. ( iv �uew: • SUPPORTED BY LEGEND: S E PARKING GARAGE NOTE: R RETAIL MAX.TWO L6STORYBLDGS. LABIF OFFICE (300,000 SF) WITH NEW 2-3 STORY O OFFICE PARKING GARAGE P PARKING GARAGE U1VI F MULTI-FAMILY I — me PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS II imp Conceptual Development Plan The Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B is comprised of two somewhat distinct parts. The ROFO area makes up the northern portion of the property along 8thAvenue, has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations, and is available for near-term redevelopment. The Boeing Remainder makes up the southern portion of the Sub-District, and contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space with re-use potential and approximately 12.85 acres of land with future redevelopment potential. ROFO Area Boeing recognizes that high-quality retail development is essential to the successful transition of the area from its industrial roots to the City's vision for the Urban Center- North. Harvest Partners and the City are both committed to ensuring that the development at Lakeshore Landing is well-designed and initiates redevelopment of a quality and at a scale which is consistent with the City's long-term vision for the area. As planning for Lakeshore Landing has progressed, the land south of 8th has been identified as an important component of the overall project. The area, known as the ROFO portion of Sub-District 1-B, has been illustrated within this Conceptual Plan as an integral part of the retail development planned to the North. The ROFO portion of the Sub-District is envisioned to contain a large format "destination"retailer located along Logan Avenue, with supporting retail shops space concentrated along both sides of Park Avenue. Generally, the large format retail development(users with footprints of 50,000 square feet or larger, and building heights up to 45 feet)is planned to occur along 8th and Logan, facing eastward toward Park Avenue. The supporting retail shops space would include a mixture of medium format retailers (ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet in area, with building heights up to 40 feet) and some component of smaller, specialty retail shops overlooking Park Avenue. 111 The Plan anticipates pedestrian connections to occur internally within the site both east toward Park Avenue, and south toward 6th Avenue. Vehicle access would occur off of Park Avenue, with loading and delivery functions relying upon Garden Avenue and an internal service road running along the southern edge of the ROFO property line. At a maximum lot coverage ratio of 30%, the ROFO site could accommodate up to 270,000 square feet of retail space. Harvest's current planning anticipates a total of 225,000 to 230,000 square feet, comprised of a 135,000— 140,000 square-foot large format retailer located along Logan, and 85,000 to 90,000 square-feet of shops space. Parking is located in well-organized surface parking lots, with primary pedestrian entrances facing inward or directed toward Park Avenue. A small portion of the site, containing a data hub for the Boeing Plant, needs to be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. It can be accommodated along the aPage 5 of 9 October 3,2005 I I a 411 southern portion of a mid-block parking field without having a negative impact on the surrounding retail uses. Summary Redevelopment of the ROFO parcel as envisioned within this Conceptual Plan meets many of the City's vision and policy statements for the Urban Center-North, which call for"retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts." This site is located within District 1, where the City identifies its first objective as follows: "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." Boeing Remainder • This portion of the plan is significantly influenced by the presence of four, 1980s-vintage office buildings that are located throughout(the 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20 buildings). Each structure is 5—6 stories in height, ranging between 160,000 and 170,000 square feet. Parking is accommodated in separate, structured garages and in `ow surrounding surface lots, at an overall ratio of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Boeing currently utilizes these four buildings and anticipates no near-term changes that would result in significant rehab or sale of the structures. In addition to the existing office buildings, there is also a 1960s-vintage lab building, known as the 10-71 building, located along Logan Avenue. Although the condition of the building and the planned widening of Logan Avenue may impact its potential re-use, Boeing and the City are interested in exploring viable adaptive re-use opportunities. To illustrate the potential capacity for redevelopment within the Conceptual Plan, the 10-71 building has been assumed to be demolished, creating a 4.9-acre development parcel between Logan Avenue and the 10-20 building(DP 1). However, Boeing would like to retain the flexibility of considering either re-use of the existing structure or redevelopment in the future. I We have assumed that the existing office buildings remain,but could be supported in the future by parking at a market-driven ratio of 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, rather than at Boeing's more conservative rate. As a result, surplus parking stalls exist within the three existing parking garages, and three additional development parcels are created: a 3.9-acre site between the 10-18 and 10-20 buildings (DP2); a 1.8-acre site on the west side of Park Avenue north of 6th(DP3); and, a 2.2-acre site on the west side of Garden Avenue north of 6a'(DP4). ■ Page 6 of 9 October 3,2005 I I DP1 4 This 4.9-acre parcel is located along Logan Avenue, immediately south of the ROFO property. Fronting on 6th Avenue, it is also adjacent to the 10-20 office building and associated parking structure. Given its location and near-term redevelopment potential, the Plan envisions its redevelopment as either a mid-rise, multifamily project or, potentially, a retail development ancillary to that anticipated on the ROFO piece. If, instead, the existing building were re-used, it is envisioned that it would be of interest either as a cost-effective research and development or contract manufacturing facility. With the demolition of the existing structure, the DP-1 site could support a significant multi-family project, either incorporated in one or more stories above ground-floor retailers, or developed at higher densities as a single use project. A five-to six-story residential project, developed at densities of 110 units per acre, would be both consistent with the residential development currently planned at Lakeshore Landing and compatible with the surrounding uses. At this higher density, approximately 535 units could be sited on DP1. Alternately, redevelopment of the DP1 parcel could accommodate up to 65,000 square feet of retail space at a 30%lot coverage ratio, taking the form of additional medium- • format and small, specialty shops space backing up against Logan. Although access would most likely occur off of 6thAvenue, the development of DP 1 could be integrated with the larger retail development occurring on the ROFO parcel. DP2 and DP4 These two parcels are both infill opportunities that exist when parking requirements for the existing office buildings are reduced. Currently underutilized and serving for the most part as overflow parking areas for Boeing employees, the Plan envisions their redevelopment with 6-story office or lab buildings, consistent with the current development pattern. In some instances where new lab development is planned, surplus parking within existing garages could fully support new development, and allow for the creation of new,private open spaces or campus greens within the neighborhood. In order to create this surplus parking opportunity,the Plan assumes either that the four existing Boeing office buildings are sold to other users with market-based parking requirements or that Boeing provides new parking areas on the Plant to accommodate its employees. The Conceptual Plan illustrates the potential redevelopment of each of these parcels with laboratory uses, resulting in approximately 720,000 square feet of new space in four separate structures. Both DP2 and DP4 could accommodate two, 6-story structures containing 180,000 square feet each. A new 2- to 3-story parking garage would be constructed between the new buildings on DP2, and the additional parking needs would be provided by ear-marking a portion of the stalls within the 10-20 parking garage. On Page of October 3,2005 a a dpkw DP4, sufficient surplus parking exists within the existing 10-18 parking garage that no new parking would need to be constructed in this location. Alternately, either DP2 or DP4 could also be redeveloped with new office uses. Given the greater parking requirement for office space (3.5/1,000)when compared to lab space (1/1,000), less development is able to be accommodated on the parcels. On DP2, a „i single, 6-story structure would be developed, containing 120,000 square feet. New structured parking would be developed behind. On DP4, approximately 300,000 square feet could be constructed in two, 6-story buildings, with all parking still provided within the existing 10-18 building garage. DP3 This parcel is located just south of the 10-18 office building, at the corner of 6th and Park Avenues. The Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses, • in both cases housed within a single 6-story structure. If developed as lab space, the building could contain approximately 180,000 square feet, supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on DP2. If developed as office space, a building of approximately 120,000 square feet could be constructed on site, with parking either provided in a new garage on DP3 or accommodated by providing • additional parking levels within a DP2 garage. MI Alternately, the DP3 parcel could accommodate up to 24,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space, fronting on Park Avenue and offering amenities to the surrounding workers and residents. Although no redevelopment of the land on the other side of Park Avenue is envisioned as part of this Conceptual Plan,redevelopment of DP3 could also lead to other improvements along Park Avenue at key intersections. It is envisioned that, if 111 developed with retail uses, DP3 would begin to meet the increased demands for amenities and services that redevelopment along the 6th Avenue corridor would require. Summary • Redevelopment as illustrated within this Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the City's Urban Center-North vision and long-range planning policies, creating a vibrant, mixed-use corridor on the north side of 6th Avenue and along Park, with mid-rise buildings fronting the streets and structured parking behind. If new development took the U form of multi-family and laboratory space, the corridor would contain a total 535 new multi-family units and 900,000 square feet of new lab space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the corridor. I I Page 8 of 9 October 3,2005 I U A Economic Benefit Analysis Summary Boeing's Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B seeks to both allow for the near-term redevelopment of Boeing's underutilized assets while advocating for a mix 4 of uses that significantly improves the City's tax and employment base. Two economic benefit analyses (Exhibit 4)have been completed to support this submittal, demonstrating the potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (1) Development illustrated within the Planning Diagram on the ROFO portion of the Sub-District(beginning in 2007); and (2) Development illustrated within the Planning Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2007 for DP 1 and in 2016 for DP 2—DP 4). 4 The economic benefits to the City of Renton associated with the redevelopment of the ROFO portion of the site can be summarized as follows: • By 2008 (project stabilization), it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone; of this job total, 859 direct jobs would be located within the development and 202 would be indirect City jobs; ■ The City is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly$667,000 during redevelopment of the parcels; • The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly$856,000,beginning in 2008. 4 The economic benefits to the City of Renton associated with the redevelopment of the Boeing Remainder portion of the site(DP 1 —4) can be summarized as follows: • By 2013 (project stabilization), it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone if this portion were developed with multifamily and lab uses as illustrated on the Conceptual Plan; of this job total, 1,700 direct jobs would be located within new buildings and 400 would be indirect City jobs; • Under this same set of land use assumptions, the City is estimated to gain one- time revenues of more than$6.2 million during redevelopment of the parcels; • The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly$2.3 million,beginning in 2013. 4 a Page 9 of 9 October 3,2005 I a , . 4741 - // _' --. ' _�' - }��- -�� -� -�_'� - - - - - ' - - - /, � r- �r - - - - _ - _ - ' '�- � _`-''' . . _ _ _ - - ' - .. - - ' _ - - - - - - ' - __ ' - . � - � �iftw ' '-_ - -_- - - - - - - - - - - I / '�� / - '- _ - ' _ - - - - - _ . tt- �� / � ��~ M TO viol N Renton — Sub District 1 B . ji f_ ,:;-,_ ,_,-..,1-,4 weesfr4www.rwv 1 117,...„:„..,..r.,-. 1. .:,.„,,ll,.,_ M1.,-.1---- ; . - -.'''..t)V J._ ;' - ,- ' ; 7 -..-.. ''.4.-:"- -- .1.- ,:-n---',.:7' ''X 4-- .h i +r -4 ar,-"-:,: '.:-/f Jit' -..-,'.:::/-`. f.a.. L er am 'd-\ j ,..--2.:4.7.-i-_,,;;;;,,,,,:., '��k4` .��'- v if ....5 i' ,i',..; 1!,-;i';.: 1 r�•\ SL f ;° k "171 0 4 1x4}�:k , 'G k t 1.,i-,-,=;!,f-14.: -5\-'1.."'AW::-_k?,,,F-,',7,,::T11::-j;1_':;:-:;:' . ,,,,,_:-.p, :,‘It"?..3,/". tks` ,-- .' a 1 .0 m,�. s'., s.-'�. s .r "� -toy. - t x n7rg ��-t r 4' E Lakeshore Landing A :.m Phase I t -� X , a: ,. c - :4,--,,,,-fes ii '_t:- ..,4fi.:_-;;i :i.-,,,- .-',-1:,f,':-;4:-.'-..: :,•:---!-;,--c-,'':,....i:',;'L-.L,-,ilikk--i:.0 - ' - •-;-..1 ,i'-f, ...-.---.H A.S.': r x ROFO -1- : -&.-11.1.0,___-_,:..1..:,----_-:-:::41--', -k it:¢,: `. 21 acres z 4 , - -A-A,,,,-:. A .:. ::,.., :,..,,.„,. ,,,,„ Boeing Remainder �-.:„, .-,.._.,,,,,:, ..„ ..„.„-• _ - . •-- , , PY' - .,.. --.J.-,:.,',,, Ak.7F Try ri,{mak fi -1,4-.,-4-2a,:-4t.'„.... ..:,:---47..1-,w;.- ,a-Kyy,: `tF ^ , 3k A 'L� - -. r�� A +?Z?.,, ,, , 9th ":$ `rt',7v. ''.` - Y` V�b.-_ Sf - a �,.b. x y 3 1. ,.-mss l .1.4.::::::4'.�: . to ,�''� '�., iA-# t � � �i�- y ,,..4.,; 11 .. .t - -?, s 11-' may-+ _.Y. W.�. G� C X M 1p SUb F,,,L„,,,,,,_,_;,-,.- k x, ::kms .-- . ki r a District , i 3 1B • . -4; '' 7--'04_11kA f: 1. 401-i*:...:.''':;.:i MI n 171 9 lillise - „Ks\ a , -,.„. \ \ -x..\ a , ! , ! \NT A 4 • ..,,, -,- ., ,A5-•. \ , 1 , --..... ..' , , .1... AM•I Mr• . ." ..,...., i 0 f I *me olpa 711.11. 1 :,•-ti.-Akettttt,,. 0 t-t- •••`'' 0 -,0 7.' 'Y, ; ..,,..t, “ , ' ----,' 1 I ,<, '''',"4"1,,,*,,,,t5-,,,,.. ,V;-...-- ,...,,.,':::...e-x-"^ 0 0 11- 1 0 .....,so Wen arm *Om dr 10 • .. , , ,. MA A fart a. .... 1 ,..4.,,, Vo e o • 1 j•:. 0 , 1 1 ;. r ‘....., , , .,.. : „ i Pt: t 0 i I tii-V.Att 4 tA I< ' t 0 -:' t 0" ' •„„) r..0 • -.1,-.1.4.,.... 1 • - . ,I. II , EV,: LfiGEND g -w-: MFOSED R.O.W i',.,41;. '.ft-V,,, ='• SP SulAnta IA -.4.5, wrap(atellikipiCe w ZUMNS 3CWOINT taktila fa 1 01-, `. 44„9 0 %Mew WNW : .16" ' r t qt Mielliky%cm..minas , 4,- II PLAk.WWW NOM I Apa IS AONSLE AILLONIC WIRIPOIDIT Of NOW 0=4":06="4 . , I arjellOYMV 6./.... I arsra.liti.sir aa, .11101 ftWaVoi as i ,IOS WADI Am GIA*aks!CO ' V NOW3I3ER ROOS i ' ... I PROPOSED ARTERIAL RIGHTS OF WAY i TO SUPPORT DISTRICT 2 I (FULL BUILDOUT) EXHIBIT IP . r I II 1 1 ECONOMIC B_ ENEFIT STUDY RititNEWPMAitAVANYtirkifettg BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY RENTON,WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation(BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping certain Sub District 1-B property under option by Harvest Partners at its Renton, Washington facility into additional retail land uses. This "right of first option" (ROFO) property is the Phase II expansion of Harvest Partners' development underway on Boeing's Renton Sub District 1B property The ROFO Phase II land area being considered for redevelopment as retail space by Harvest Partners is comprised of 21.20 net acres. It is only a portion of the 1 50.70 gross acres that comprises Boeing's entire Sub District 1-B Renton property. 1 The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton the economic benefits derived from Harvest Partners redeveloping this target ROFO property if fully developed as follows: 1 Retail—Shop Space 91,000 Retail—Big Box 135,000 Total 226,000 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if Harvest Partners excises # their option to purchase the targeted Renton Boeing parcels. The benefits are measured by comparing the full redevelopment of this property as retail uses ' between 2006 and 2008 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured (one-time and recurring)in terms of: 1 > Jobs 1 > Income ➢ Property values 1 ➢ Public revenues State of Washington 1 King County City of Renton I I Deleted:9/23/2005 1 9;26/2005, Page 1 I Ned I I II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping Harvest Partners ROFO parcels into retail space are only as valid as the underlying assumptions.' These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions. It is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of the Boeing Renton Sub District I B property into retail uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2008 between "redevelopment" of the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: D By 2008(project stabilization), an estimated 1,667 jobs would be created if the target 21.20 acres comprising Harvests Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into shop space and big box retail uses.2 D Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 808 indirect jobs would be created by 2008. D These jobs would generate an additional $ 80 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2008. 1 D Of this income total, nearly $45 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B ROFO parcels and over$35 million in indirect income would be created in 2008 and thereafter. D The corresponding increase in property values for the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels is forecast at nearly$53 million by 2008. 'Although not guaranteed,the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 dollars. 2 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting(induced)from expenditures associated with direct job creation. (Deleted:9/23/2005 9,26,2005 Page e 2 I Now 1 1 virf D The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2008 to the State of Washington is estimated at nearly $5.1 million. This is in addition to nearly $3.8 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of the additional retail space on the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of Harvest Partners redeveloping this excess Boeing property in Sub District 1-B are now summarized: > By 2008, it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-B. Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 202 indirect City jobs would be created by 2008. > The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly $667,000 during redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO Sub District 1-B parcels. > The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly$856,000 in 2008 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new retail space. Audie Table 1 summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2006 through 2008 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over$66,000 during land development and over $601,000 during construction of the retail shop and big box space. Sources for these municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the retail space is completed and absorbed (2008 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at nearly $856,000. Nearly $187,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. Annual sales taxes generated from the retail space is estimated to exceed $584,000. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $58,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over$26,000 annually. 1 Deleted:9(232005 -)_'r'ui!i Page 3 I Now Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS I HARVEST PARTNERS SUB DISTRICT 1-B One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2006-2007 in 2008 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 92 859 Indirect Jobs 16 39 202 Total Jobs 58 131 1,061 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 $ 44,657,600 Indirect Income $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 $ 8,889,439 Total Income $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 $ 53,547,039 CITY TAX REVENUES I Property Tax $ 186,873 Sales Tax $ 66,379 $ 295,201 $ 584,225 Employee Head Tax $ 58,346 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 $ 26,325 Total Tax Revenues $ 601,458 $ 855,769 I Chart 1 shows that 1,061 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 859 would be direct on-site jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 202 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of '41w✓ Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO property in Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B area. Chart 1 I City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2008 1,200 1,061 800 I 400 ■ With Project Without Project r Deleted:9/132005 I 9/26!2004 Page 4 I I I I I Nati Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $54 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2008 and thereafter. Chart 2 New Job Annual Income hi 2008 $60 S54 E S40 a a g 520 I S- With Project Without Project Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2008, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from$8.6 million to nearly$61.3 million—an increase of$52.7 million. Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2008 REDEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PROPERTY I Without Project $8.6 With Project $61.3 I I I $0 $25 $50 $75 Dollars in millions Deleted:923/1005 I 9126,2OO j Page 5 I 1 I I I I Napi Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of nearly $668,000 during the estimated 2006 through 2007 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B property starting in 2007. This will increase until 2008 where it peaks at nearly $856,000 as an ongoing annual cash flow to the City. Chart 4 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues $1,000,000 5800,000 d t $600,000 ®Recurring III Onetime F 5400,000 $200,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 • jf Deleted:9/23/2005 1 9,26/2041, Page 6 1 Nov 1 1 1 i ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY tet: ISTRICT 1-: • P , f � -. ' g ,r 11 'TON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation(BRC)is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping four parcels in Boeing Sub District 1-B at its Renton, Washington facility into a new mix of lab and multi-family land uses. The land area of these redevelopment parcels comprises 12.85 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres comprising Boeing's Sub District 1-B Renton property. The proposed new land use mix for these four Boeing redevelopment parcels resulted from an evaluation of the holding capacity of these excess properties and from market potential considerations. i The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton economic benefits derived from redeveloping these four targeted Boeing Renton parcels if fully developed as follows: Lab 900,000 Multi-Family 535,500 3 Total 1,435,500 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if the targeted Renton Boeing parcels are entirely redeveloped and absorbed between 2008 and 2013 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured(one-time and recurring) in terms of: ➢ Jobs D Income D Property values ➢ Public revenues State of Washington 1 King County City of Renton I II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping the four Boeing Renton parcels 1 comprising 12.85 net acres into modem lab and multi-family space are only as (Deleted:9/232005 I I 9 26r'2UU, Page 1 I I i I 4 Now valid as underlying assumptions.' These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions and is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the four Boeing Renton parcels into the proposed uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2013 between "redevelopment" of the four Boeing parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: D By 2013 (project stabilization), an estimated 3,300 jobs would be created if the target 12.85 acres comprising four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into lab and multi-family uses.2 > Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped lab buildings and 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by 3 2013. • 3 > These lab jobs would generate an additional $ 158 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2013. NOW D Of this income total, over$88 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B parcels and over $70 million in indirect income would be created in 2013 and thereafter. i D The corresponding increase in property values for the four target Renton redevelopment parcels is forecast at over$550 million by 2013. > The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2013 to the State of Washington is estimated at over $3.6 million. This is in addition to over $33.5 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of new lab and multi-family space on the four Boeing 3 parcels at the Renton Sub District 1-B site. 'Although not guaranteed,the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 dollars. 2 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting(induced)from expenditures associated with direct job creation. (Deleted:9t2312005I I 9!26:200 Page 2 *titre I I I IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of redeveloping Boeing's four parcels of excess property in Sub District 1-B are now summarized. > By 2013, it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-B. Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the new lab buildings and 400 indirect jobs in the City would be created by 2013. > The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time tax revenues of over$6.2 million during redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. > The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of over$2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new lab and multi-family space. Table 1 summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2008 through 2012 development period, accrued ,moi City tax revenues are estimated to generate over$40,000 during land development and over $6,168,000 during construction of lab buildings and multi-family structures. Sources for these one-time municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the lab and multi-family buildings are completed and absorbed (2013 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at over $2,343,000. Nearly $1,953,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $115,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $275,000 annually. 3 i Deleted:9/232005 9/26/2995, Page 3 1 S II S I 1 Nov Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2008-2012 in 2013 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 1,700 Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2,100 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ 123,146,400 Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ 17,596,700 Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 2 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 1,952,593 Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ - Employee Head Tax $ 115,496 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ 275,071 Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,160 Chart 1 shows that 2,100 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these,(1•- 00 would be direct on-site lab jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an esti ed 400 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of 3 Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the four ' Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. 3 Chart 1 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 2 3,000 i2 2,100 ■ 2,000 3 1,000 I With Project Without Project a Deleted:9113/2005 1 9;26'20t) Page 4 vase Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City 9 of Renton estimated at nearly $141 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2013 and a thereafter. Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 2013 $150 $141 is $100 a 3 A $50 With Project Without Project Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the four Boeing parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2013, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from under$74 million a to nearly$624 million—an increase of$550 million. 111 Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2013 BOEING SUBDISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS Without Project $73.7 411 With Project $623.8 I i I $0 $200 $400 $600 Dollars in millions I Deleted:923/2005 1 9/26x200 Page 5 p Ntaye Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of over $6,208,000 during the estimated 2008 through 2012 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the four Sub District 1-B parcels starting in 2009. This will increase each year until 2013 where it peaks at over$2,343,000 million as an annual flow into the City. Chart 4 i New City Of Renton Tax Revenues S3,000,000 111 H $2,000,000 d ■Recurring ®Onetime siLillill 000000 3 _ 44rrr 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 A 3 j 0 3 a Deleted:9232005 a 9,26 2005 Page 6 01 err' b! P P Ned Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS 10 0 FOUR BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS 0 BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2008-2012 in 2013 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 1,700 a Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2,100 $ ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ 123,146,400 n Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ 17,596,700 Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 I CITY TAX REVENUES im Property Tax $ 1,952,593 Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ 3 Employee Head Tax $ ' 115,496 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ 275, g Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,1M A HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS A BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY al One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2006-2007 in 2008 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 92 859 Indirect Jobs 16 39 202 g Total Jobs 58 131 1,061 ANNUAL INCOME a Direct Income $ 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 $ 44,657,600 Indirect Income $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 $ 8,889,439 A Total Income $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 $ 53,547,039 ne CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 186,873 • Sales Tax $ 66,379 $ 295,201 $ 584,225 fa Employee Head Tax $ 58,346 illi Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 $ 26,325 Total Tax Revenues $ 66,379 $ 601,458 $ 855,769 FINAL—Combined Benefits—RelitP 9/26/2005 �`- '-`- ---.--'--'-•'--- ------`--.--._ .. .. . .. .. . ._ .. ffA► GPTArG Gnnumm�l+ Www COMBINED ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS & BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario _ Development Development 2006-2012 in 2013 I CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 67 473 2,559 I Indirect Jobs 25 198 602 Total Jobs 92 671 3,161 1 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 3,406,655 $ 59,393,400 $ 167,804,000 Indirect Income $ 1,089,693 $ 38,347,461 $ 26,486,139 1 Total Income $ 4,496,348 $ 97,740,861 $ 194,290,139 CITY TAX REVENUES 1 Property Tax $ 2,139,466 Sales Tax $ 106,613 $ 3,344,519 $ 584,225 I Employee Head Tax $ 173,842 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,425,222 $ 301,396 I tal Tax Revenues $ 106,613 $ 6,769,741 $ 3,198,929 I I i I 1 I' i a 0 FINAL—Combined Benefits—Rev1 P 9/26/2005 ECONOMICS TOTAL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING & HARVEST PARTNERS PARCELS t ' COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IN SUB DISTRICT 1-B City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 4,000 3,161 3,000 2,000 1,000 With Project Without Project = New Job Annual Income in 2013 $194 S200 *11 C 5150 0 S100 S50 S- With Project Without Project New City Of Renton Tax Revenues S4,000,000 S3,000,000 I I . •Recurring 2000000 . . . . .` ■Onetime 8 51,000,000 S_ Frl II II II II ... 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 FINAL—Combined Benefits—Rev1 P 9/26/2005 The data and calculations presented herein while not guaranteed,have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. REAL ESTATE ECONOMICS APPPMF!D DY 1 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE GETY CQ NG$L NoseCOMMITTEE REPORT / Date aDOS! November 14,2005 Boeing Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan (Referred October 17, 2005) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Conceptual Plan proposed by The Boeing Company for the potential redevelopment of 50.7-acres of Boeing property in the South Lake Washington area known as Subdistrict lB with the conditions outlined below. The northern 21.2 acres of the property is expected to become surplus and brought forward for redevelopment in the immediate future. This property is under a "right of first refusal" agreement with Harvest Partners, the owner and developer of the 46 acres of property formerly owned by Boeing immediately adjacent to this property to the north. Boeing proposes that this intial parcel be developed with as much as 270,000 square feet of retail. The remaining property is expected to be retained by Boeing for five to 10 years. However, upon redevelopment, as much as 900,000 square feet of lab and/or office, as well as some additional retail and multi-family housing, could be developed in and around the 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings, which are anticipated to be sold and re- occupied by other companies. To enhance the plan and its consistency with the Vision and Policies for the Urban Center—North adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions should be imposed on the Conceptual Niof Plan: 1) That Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian-oriented Street," to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the subdistrict and the planned retail/entertainment center expected to be developed to the north, and 2) That a transit facility would be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if funding for such a facility emerged and it could be developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail and employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned Conceptual Plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. r Terri Briere,Chuncil President cc: Alex Pietsch Gregg Zimmerman Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Nancy Weil CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: �p a rr Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: November 27, 2006 Dept/Div/Board Development Services Division Staff Contact: Elizabeth Higgins, x7382 Agenda Status Consent: Subject: Public Hearing Request to remove Dalpay properties restrictive covenants. Correspondence Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions RC 8404300578 Information... Ordinance 3806 Vicinity map Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: None Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted: Revenue Generated: Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: In 1984, restrictive covenants were required by the City as conditions of rezone of properties located on Union Avenue NE between NE 12th Street and Sunset Boulevard NE. Those restrictions placed by the covenant are now outdated and are in conflict with the goals of the current comprehensive plan and should be removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the administration's request to remove restrictive covenant bearing King County recording #8404300578 for Dalpay property located on Union Avenue NE between Sunset Blvd and NE 12th Street. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\ERH\Preapplication reports\Preapplication follow-up\dalpay_covenant_agenda_bill.doc Y PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS �% ��, DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NT DATE: November 20, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council CC: .- Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: � Gregg Zimmermaninistrator STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, x7382 SUBJECT: Removal of Restrictive Covenant ISSUE: Should the City of Renton remove a restrictive covenant from properties ("Dalpax properties") located on Union Avenue NE between Sunset Boulevard and NE 12 Street (tax#0423059273, 0423059061, and Now, RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Release of Restrictive Covenant documents by affixing your signature. BACKGROUND: On May 4, 1984, a restrictive covenant was placed on properties owned by Jim Dalpay as a condition for rezoning the property for commercial use. According to the Supplemental Report to the Hearing Examiner,the purpose of the covenant was to "create a transitional commercial area that could be utilized as a use buffer between standard high-density commercial activities and residential areas." To create this buffer, the covenant required a 15-foot landscape screen adjacent to residential zones, limited building height to 35 feet and prohibited access from NE 12th St. In the 22 years that have passed since the placing of the covenant,the City's land use goals have undergone a considerable amount of change. As a result, the motives behind the covenant no longer justified and run contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It is no longer the City's intent to segregate commercial and residential uses. Rather, there is now a focus on promoting the development of mixed-uses and this site would benefit from that goal. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-338 states "Commercial Arterial Noise zoned areas should include an opportunity for residential uses and office as part of mixed-use development." Page 2 of 2 October 24,2006 Similar to the language of the covenant,the Commercial Arterial zone has a requirement for a 15-foot landscaped area between commercial and residential zones. However, the code allows this requirement to be modified through the Site Plan Review process, whereas the covenant allows for no flexibility. If a modification were approved by City officials, street-front commercial space could be developed, which would be much more in-line with the goals of increased visibility and pedestrian access than the restrictions of the covenant. When the covenant was placed,the commercial zone allowed for a building height of 95 feet. The current Commercial Arterial Zone allows for a considerably lower height of 50 feet. By removing the height restriction of 35 feet from the covenant, added vertical density would be allowed which would better achieve Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-347. "Implement development standards that encourage lively, attractive medium to high-density commercial areas." Because of the complex topography along Sunset Blvd,the prohibition of vehicular access from NE 12 St imposes an unnecessary hardship on the property. During the pre-application meeting conducted in September 2006,the Planning/Building/Public Works Department was not opposed to allowing access from NE 12th St. Again, removing the covenant restriction and allowing for the Site Plan Review process would provide City oversight on any development and would create room for flexibility and creative development. CONCLUSION: Because of changes in the City's Comprehensive Plan and codebook, the outdated restrictions placed upon the Dalpay properties by restrictive covenant are no longer necessary and are in conflict with the City's current land use goals. By removing the covenant, both the City staff and the developer would be allowed a greater opportunity for flexibility which would result in a development that would more closely match the desired results of the Comprehensive Plan. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\ERH\Preapplication reports\Preapplication follow-up\Dalpay issue paper.doc • RE@EOVIEffil APR 2 0 1984 Nor WARREN&KELLOGG By • DECLARATION OF COVENANTS , CONDITIONS , RESTRICTIONS, AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENT THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND 2ISERVATION OF EASEMENTS (this "Declaration") made as of this /c1 day of , 1984, is by and between JAMES W. DALPAY, a single m n ( 'Dalpay") , and LEROY A. CROOKSTON and SENNIE A. CROOKSTON, husband and wife ("Crookston", with Dalpay and Crookston being referred to collectively herein as "Applicant") . Dalpay is the fee owner of the real property described a) on Exhibit 1 hereto (the "Dalpay Fee Property") , and the owner of a contract vendee's interest in the real property et described on Exhibit 2 hereto (the "Dalpay Contract Property", with the Dalpay Fee Property and Dalpay Contract Property being c, referred to herein collectively as the "Dalpay Property") . Crookston owns the fee interest in the real property legally tea, described on Exhibit 3 hereto (the "Crookston Property", with GO the Dalpay Property and the Crookston Property being referred to collectively herein as the "Property") . Applicant has requested that the City of Renton ("City") loaw change the zoning classification of the Property to "B-i", and the City is willing to grant said change in zoning classi- fication provided that Applicant imposes on the Property the conditions , covenants , restrictions and reservation of easements set forth hereinbelow. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City' s change of the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1", Applicant hereby declares the Property subject to the following Covenants , Conditions , Restrictions and Reservation of Easements : Section 1 Prohibited Uses . Notwithstanding the change of the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1", the Property shall not be used for the operation of a (i) furniture store, (ii) laundry, cleaning and pressing establishment , (iii) locksmith or shoe repair shop, (iv) lumber yard or fuel yard, (v) public garage, repair shop, battery service station or tire repair shop, (vi) fast food restaurant or for any restaurant operating 24 hours a day, (vii) gas station, (viii) undertaking establishment, (ix) mobile home park, (x) self-storage facility, (xi) 24-hour convenience store, (xii) tavern, or (xiii) multi-family use, apartments , duplexes or condominiums . Any part of the property presently being used for residential purposes shall not hereafter be FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF r 4/04/30 #(1578 B RECD F 11 . 06 BCE OF THE CITY CLERK CPSHSL ***II. 00 REHTON AWN'1o'AL BLDG. 55 200 MR AVE.S0. RENTON,WA 88055 used for residential purposes other than single family residential purposes . In addition no part of the property not presently being used for or zoned for residential purposes shall hereafter be used for residential purposes . Section 2 New Structures . No new structure shall be constructed upon the Property until City, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium imposed by City Resolution No. 2392; provided that nothing set forth in this Section shall prohibit changes of use of any existing structures which are otherwise consistent with this Declaration and in accord with applicable laws . Section 3 Site Plan Approval . The use of any existing OD structure shall not be changed and no new structure shall be constructed upon the Property without the City' s prior approval of a site plan for such change of use and or new structure . O 0, Section 4 Maximum Height. No new structure shall be Qconstructed upon the Property which exceeds thirty-five (35) Tr feet in height . oD Section 5 Crookston Property Access . An easement for ingress and egress to and from the Crookston Property from Union Avenue Northeast shall be established at a location mutually acceptable to City and Applicant when the Crookston Property is redeveloped. At such time as the Crookston Property or any structure thereon is converted to commercial use, the Crookston Property shall no longer be entitled to ingress to and egress from 12th Street except to the extent required by City for emergency access purposes . When converted to or used for commercial purposes , the Dalpay Property shall in no event be entitled to any access from Northeast 12th Street. Section 6 Building Setback Area. No new structure shall be placed on the westerly 15 feet of the Property (the "Building Setback Area") , but utility lines and landscaping may be located in and upon the Building Setback Area. Section 7 Landscaping. No new structure shall be placed upon the Property without a landscape plan approved by City and landscaping required by such plan shall be installed concurrently with the development. When the Property is redeveloped, the Property shall be landscaped in substantial sque compliance with Exhibit 6 to the City' s rezone hearing dated January 12, 1984; provided, however, that if the Dalpay Property is developed or redeveloped before the Crookston Property, the boundary line between th.e Dalpay Property and the Crookston Property shall be landscaped with six (6) foot high Columnar Arbovitae until such time as the Dalpay Property is developed or converted to commercial use and the west and south boundaries of the Crookston Property will not be landscaped. Should the present residential building that is closest to N. E. 12th on the Dalpay Property be converted to a business use, then the landscaping under this paragraph shall be installed. Should the residential building to the north of the residential O building next to N. E. 12th, and on the Dalpay Property, be used for other than residential purposes , and the building envelope be changed or expanded or the parking increased, or any other change be made to the building or property whichsignificantlyTP changes the visual impact of the property, then the landscaping Tr under this paragraph. shall be installed. QD Section 8 Runs with Land. This Declaration is for the benefit of City and shall run with the land. This Declaration may not be modified or amended in any respect without the written consent of th.e City granted in accordance with any then ‘111w applicable ordinances, rules , regulations or other laws. Section 9. Joinder by Vendors . Ben Pillo, Tony Pillo, Dominic Pillo, Rose Souther and Mary Zachrison, each as their separate state , own the contract vendor 's interest in the Dalpay Contract Property and each of them joins in Declaration for the purpose of binding their interest in the Dalpay Contract Property to the terms of this Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Declaration as of the day and set forth hereinabove. AdligtVir Jam- : . Da pay 1/-..►_ 1 r , ? te . e'oy roo ston /7 Sennie A. Crookston Ben Pillo Now' ,, ,, ,.,e.i.0i i j a,:g 6 Tony eti / . ..:::::_i,(, Domin' Pillo / ir .14,,2Yw.,-/ __ e S. ther At....,‘": _".:...i.i....64/..• a y ac - s..% STATE OF WASHINGTON) OD i' ) ss C COUNTY OF KING ) m On this day personally appeared before me JAMES W. DALPAY Gto me known to be the individual described in and who executed C, the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he qa signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official sea this ,'" • = of _e_/t 1984. 4 47.4. . . d' 't .' 746111 - N.' ary 'u: ,c in a/ or t ie, ,State- , Was in: •• , re,/;•Ing _fit Ary,,, r, Arr -i r:s;tea' C: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me LEROY A. CROOKSTON and SENNIE A. CROOKSTON, husband and wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. 4 111-,day - p-'4,1/1/Z---)Given under my hand and official seal this , 1984. if,,,,_: ::oroida i lAiiiii?dOi, , _ ._ - -,, Notar ",-, " -"A't an.. •`" the State of W., ing•`ori„',r -�:daig_ re-Ado ? `��''tttt,in,waLY, Noon' STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me BEN PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this /5 day of 1984. ofir` p Notar 'ublic in and , •6r t t S ate o 1 ashington, residing;.at F ��/�r� 07 O . ' tV QD STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me BEN PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this ! � day of 1984. NRI otar Public .i "and- I . : to of _ shington, resiflitVat; PV'. err+ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me TONY PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. op Given under my hand and official seal this 20,day of, 72.. .` r 1984. ---_ Notar 'ublic 1 ;. • . ,-'forth S to Cr 0 o "ashington, residing, at 'a+ OD STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me DOMINIC PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this 0 dayof . 1984. , L— , 440 Notary • blic in and for t ate • ington, residing .q://7 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me ROSE SOUTHER, to me .. known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she.-signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the use andr .pur„poses'-: therein mentioned. f GIVEN under my hand and official seal this / • .y � 11 VP .blic in ;an.. 1fq „,th • ington, residing at STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me MARY ZACHRISON, to GO me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses © CD and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 2p day of TP 1984. ' QD !Lig .' I ,Notar Pu. 1c in an• fo 7,, t 7 tate of .shington, residing at _. • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3806 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R•-1) TO BUSINESS DISTRICT (B-1) (DALPAY R-033-83) WHEREAS under Chapter 7, Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of • the City of Renton", as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residence District (R-1) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Building and Zoning Department ; on or about May 9, 1983, which petition was duly referred to the Hearin Examiner for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public . September 13, 1983 and hearing having been held thereon on or about/IJanuary 12, 1984, and • said matter having been duly consiUered by the Hearing Examiner and ' said zoning request having been denied and the matter having been appealed to the City Council of the City of Renton and said City Council having reversed, with conditions, the Hearing Examiner's decision 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, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: • ;y r> _ F :n . ,:,-, w ,.,. Now SECTION I: The following described property in. the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Business District (B--1) as hereinbelow specified; the Building and.Zoning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: .See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Said property being located at 4010& 401.8 NE_ 12th Street and 1225 Union Avenue NE) AND SUBJECT FURTHER to that certain Declaration of Restrictive Covenants executed by Petitioner-Owners on or about March 14, 1984, and recorded in the office of the Director of Recors and. Elections, Receiving No. 840.4300578 and which said Covenants are hereby Nifty incorporated and made a part hereof as if fully set forth. SECTION II; This Ordinance Shall.be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY. THE CITY COUNCIL this 23rd day oft4:,, 1984. Maxine E. Motor, City er APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 23rd day of :April 1984. �� OG`V�- Barbara Y.vShinpobh, Mayor Approved as to form: ,awrence 41, Wa en, 'City Attorney Date of Publication: May 4, 1984 Republished May 18, 1984 To correct legal . • ORDINANCE NO. 3806 `' Rezone-033-83 PARCEL "A" That portion of the east 280 feet of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. W.M., In King County. Washington; lying south of the Renton-Issaquah Road, described as follows; • Beginning at the southeast corner of said southeast quarter; thence north 87°59'43" west 30.01 feet along the south line thereof; thence north 0°59'25" east 30.01 feet, parallel to the east line of said southeast quarter, to the point of beginning; thence continuing north 0°59'25" east 44.94 feet; thence north 58°06'10" west 155.79 feet; thence south 13°09'14" west 125.00 feet; thence south 87°59'43" east 160.04 feet to the point of beginning, in King County. Washington. PARCEL "8" • That portion of the east 280 feet of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Section; thence north 0°59'25" east along the east line of said section, a distance of 188.44 feet; thence north 64°34'52"west 32.95 feet to the west line of 132nd Avenue southeast and the true point of beginning; thence south 0°59'25" west to a point that bears north 0°59`25" east 44.94.feet from the north line of northeast 12th Street; thence north 584'06'10" west 155.79 feet; thence westerly along the north line of a tract of land conveyed to Leroy A. Crookston and wife. Sennie A. Crookston, by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5455279, a distance of 120 feet to a point on the west line of the east 280 feet; thence north 0°59`25" east along said west line to a point which bears north 64°34'52" west from the true point of beginning; thence south 64°34'52" east 274.60 feet to the true point of beginning. Situated in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington PARCEL "C" That portion of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point 30•feet north and 190 feet west of the• southeast corner of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4; thence west 90 feet; thence north 150 feet; thence southeasterly 120 feet to a point 125 feet northeasterly of beginning; thence • southwesterly 125 feet to the point of beginning. Revised 5/14/84 • I.o M p • o , . •So Li z . o$ito , . • • , k a`�� _ C^ t- s h , e , k N N_ C..e4/ .\. V , sy -s 6.9...04_4.7-e • [� r t1. 1, 1I .,Zo ••.. 0�p •'\ tin',1 o, 7.3u y - t.n_si ,q\', • or N., lei \`e` ir • lit \ \It ' i, „1,.........., ♦-sy, NOP... G• t f.0 .5-2180 �cr • Wit-• .4 "Z'.'ri -. C •6 �O p ,,4 Y• • •\��.y a h 0 �eb - � - Ne Sifie I W b f' ._ D to o 8 •1;-iiir,.. I.„„. ' il ‘. • � �• N. r tiYTON pRd z 31.11 '�—... ' ' ti �4t!` VI a� 3 , L „ ' moie. „` 4 --4~ .',oa , �"”- • - • � d • I t"- r �� I I C • �,� 1!S ' • P�6�j9 ot I • 2 -c eCP I -, ,..k O 0 $ • o 1 ' 4v • • IP'of) " , ,- [ I .6. ,-,,) ,^ ZPAk- i Ape - z9,.z5 a 2 . . . . •„ • ,-1,-.7,-,: ,., . , .,...,„ . ,_ t• ct - PG •g 0.lZ�� .11 Z sr[o •torr . 4 1 00 • f .291 92es ?.6,4c /P� at eo3 , 30 3o _ s'r"V • Ordinance No. 3806' : ... . . • Rezone '033-83 . • • ' k. i\ • pNj 23rd�l c '. , Rf-B.1 . - R-8 NE 22 .R:-8 7 R;8 ��rr CD St. R-8 • .,NE._ d NE 22ri e ., , NE 22nd St. R-8 . ,� © - -C*a N E21st : .. . - -- . )--- ir . :C) I 1 r --8 1----':-.• _ Q, �R $-o _ r. R-8 -1..R=� _.. - NE ..1�J _...... A m R . ._ R rB • --=8 R hlt F NE1?t, - NE rah St.= '17t' - ,� _....R- ..- R:-8 . Blvd. :-...,-R---i-1 0 a) R=10; .0 W; R R _a7, • llr • an - . . E,12 h. o - ---C A 1 NE -1 the ' . _ T8. _ #Ts R F w ,.-s. • SITE EXHIBIT 1 • / P. • i•' ,f} ., of Re - , . ,C') z BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ;.. ,:.-,t:.. - • ;i' E 1,4 •• RONALD G.NELSON-DIRECTOR .t • Zig MUNICIPAL BUILDING 20o MILL AVE.sO. RENTON.WASH.moss • 2]5-Z544 -•f •" - clet rEa SEPt.Q. , - BARBARA Y, SNINPOCH '`.' c MAYOR `. r" • • DATE: March 2, 1984 „,1. -.1 r • • TO: Dan Kellogg,Assistant CIty Attorney • i • '• • L• `� 1''• ....... • :' FROM. /Roger Blaylock.Zoning Administrator • ; r:�.•• .•• • SUBJECT: CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE _ �` DALPAY/CROOKSTON REZONE REQUEST:R-033-83 t.I: ''s: r, �.r z., • — The following is the compiling of all L the conditions imposed by either the - ' .-,, . ' Environmental Review Committee or the Planning and Development Committee as set /.r, • • - ; forth at their meeting of Thursday.March 1, 1994. l .: Environmental Review Committee I' r•. • ' 1. At.the time of conversion from the existing single family use to the proposed • • commercial use, a fifteen foot (15') landscaped buffer shall be established along • k. :.• •C • • the south property line adjacent to N.E. 12th Street end along the western property line. • . 2. T:te Tax Lot 9235 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 4. Township 23,Range 5, shall be .' ,. - provided access to Union Avenue N.E. • • - 3. At the time of conversion to commercial use, all access to the subject site shall be• •"'. • : ' limited to Union Avenue N.E. i t 4. The maximum building height for any future construction shall be limited to the sy-;'. ' '- maximum height of thirty-five feet(35') • �o —•--- Apcljcant'sPrnc.:cadRestrictions c-,'. ._:•;• •- . 1. No structure may be constructed within the westerly fifteen feet (15') of the • Property. Further. the westernfifteen feet(15') shall be landscaped incidental to any development. Yt. • 2- Pursuant to Issuance of city permits for redevelopment, a landscaped Plan shell be -N,: :••;t. ' approved by the city's Building Department, `' • �— F� ♦ 3. No new structure maybe Cpnstriot . �4-r S ea upon the subject pr^perty until the pity, by ` . '' t• lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium (Ordinance If2392); Provided this . • shall not prohibit changes of use in- accord with the zoning for the present Fy:;‘••: • "•• i • structures. c" '•• , 1• rr `I '..f.s` {. \' iii• '_ .. `'i'/ 'r` :i ice' ,' '7, ,: ,..�..T_'' :- • y ••VI, r" • -y / • BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT .' • SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER 1, " ; PURI••J-TEARING I v•' • •--,„ '1- JANUARY 17,. 1904 ; • • •i • 'L•P .(•• 1 .S . APPLICAN1: JAMES W.DALPAY/I•!_ROY A.CROOKS ION • r ••; ,• 4 FILE NUMBER: R-033-83 1 •i t • -t'•, ,-• A. SUMMARY&PURPOSE OF REQUEST: ;r' i ,•i• r ,.,' The applicants have modified the"original request submitted and considered by the ' I-'• •• Land Use Hearing Examiner on Septen+ber 13. 1903 to specifically limit ther. 1' proposed development by use regulations and by a limitation an construction of new j . ► ` • structures. • + B. ANALYSIS: •') 1 1. The original proposal submitted by the applicant was fairly limited by the ", decision of the Environmental Review Committee. These limitations have • k _ not been opposed by either the applicant or the general public. • ./ 2. The applicants In their response to the Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision I i'` - of September 27. 1985. proposed to the City Council specifically limiting . non-compatible uses on the subject site. along with limiting any new • ' • development on the site for a three Year period, or to.removal of the l•• • - moretorium under Ordinance 2392. J' • The first two points dealing with the fact that no Structure would be located --'• • . In the westerly fifteen feet of the preperty and that any development or •i i•' • . redevelopment plans of the site would require approval of the City's t landscape architect are non-substantive because they are implied requirements under the Environmental Fteview Committee's decision and city ' • codes dealing with landscaping. %' 3. The Building &,zoning Department has taken the position that the `crone • • /,‘, , request as limited by the Environmental Ftevlew Committee,is a proper land -:• use for the subject.site. Applicant's proposal limits the typos of commercial • • uses. In effect,we have created a transitionalcommeccial area that could be i• • P- ! utilized as a use buffer between standard high-density commercial activities and residential areas. In fact, the Planning Commission looked at the ;. concept of creating an office use buffer zone which would create both a ' b• • uffer from the points of view of intensity of land use,and size and setbacks • �: .r • of structures. • .� .. , 6, There was specific discussion in the Examiner's first report addressing the issue of a fifteen foot landscape buffer and the effectiveness of that buffer. _ • Fifteen feet from a landscaping point of view is more than a sufficient area • • . to create a dense evergreen screen. In fact. I would presume that the applicant will argue that fifteen feet is twice as much as necessary to • . provide screening. The continuing problem with landscaping is the fact that •• ' all trees start out small and end up large. arid the inconvenience and lack of screening for that period when they develop. However. the specific size of • / materials could be.dicteted so that an Immediate screen of at least twelve to _ • rr••. - fifteen feet in height could be provided by using a combination of evergreen ' and deciduous plantings. • J. s. ! 1 • . • • • 1•, ' ' • T " PRELIMINARY UPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER IAMBS W.DALP?Y/LEROY A.CROOKSTON R-032-e3 • - •• \. • • Page 3 • 3. Schools: Not applicable. - d. Social: Minor. • 5. Traffic: Additional information is necessary before the traffic Impact can be ' . . determined. ' ' •• • f r• ON? HNQIYIBNIAL ASSSSSIM[BKTI_TRRRSFiOL2DBZ'gRIV024TION: .. ,. -• < Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State • . Non-Environmental Polley Act of 1971, as amended, RCN! 43-11C, a Declaration - . of Significance with conditions was Issued by the Bnvirunwental Review Committee on August 10,1983. , A. AGBNCI1S[DBPAIghtENTS CONTACTED: 1. City of Renton Building&Zoning Department. • • 1. City of Renton Design Engineering Division. ' 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. • 4. City ofRenton Utilities limb:eerie&Division. S. City of Renton Pita Prevention Bureau. • 4. City at Renton Policy Development Department. 1. City of R,enton Parra&Recreation Department. • L. DHPAKTME TT ANALYSIS; 1. The applicants are seeking a rezone of approximately 57,725 square feet from R-1 (Single-Pamily Residential) to 5-1 (Bualneaa Use) for expansion of proposed cotumascialuses. 1 2. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the original proposal and Issued a proposed aeclaratlon of significance based on an unrestricted 5-1 . use. The applicant responded in writing on August 10, 1933 with a modified • • rezone request which would actually create a contract rezone. The • - Environmental Review Committee then reviewed the request on August 10th • • ' and issued a declaration of eon-algntflcanee subject to the following four :. conditions: • ` s. At the time of conversion from the existing single-family use to the . proposed commercial use, a fifteen (15) foot landscape butter shalt be established along the southern property line adjacent to M8. 12th • Street and also along the western property line. . b. Tax Int 19235 of the SR Quarter of Section 4, Township 23, Range 5, • shall be provided with access to Union Avenue NA. C. At the time of conversion to commercial ash, all access to the subject site shall be limited to Union Avenue N.& • d. The maximum building height for any future construction still be . limited to a maximum height of thirty-five(3S)feet. • • The conditions Imposed by the Environmental Review Committee subetantlaily limit the normal heighth of a building in tbo 5-1 Zone from ninety-five (95) flet to thirty-five (35) feet. This limitation on height, combined with the required landscape buffer and access controis reduce the . impacts upon the adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods to the . ti south and waft. 3. The Land Use Hearing Examiner const review four specific criteria under • Section 4-3014(C) to determine that the circumstances surrounding the rezone request are idaquate to recommend appxaval of the reclanIf cation. The following evidence clearly demonstrates that the rezone veiniest is appropriate. a. That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject •, ', reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the • arcelA: That portion of the east 280 feet of the SE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 4 T23N R5E lying south of the Renton-Issaquah Road described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said SE1/4;thence north 87°59'56"west 30.01 feet along the south line thereof thence north 0°58'56" east 30.01 feet,parallel to the east line of said SE1/4 to the point of beginning;thence continuing north 0°58'58"east 44.94 feet; thence north 58°06'10"west 155.79 feet;thence south 13°09'14"west 125 feet; thence south 87°59'56"east 160,04 feet to the point of beginning, Parcel B: That portion of the east 280 feet of the SE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 4 T23N R5E described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said section;thence north 0°58'58"cast along the east line of said section a distance of 188.44 feet;thence north 64°34'52"west 32.95 feet to the west line of 132nd Ave. SE and the true point of beginning;thence south 0°58'58" west to a point which bears north 0°58'58"east 44.94 feet from the north line of NE 12th St.; thence north 58°06'10"west 155,79 feet;thence westerly along the north line of a tract of land conveyed to Leroy A.Crookston and wife by deed recorded under Auditor's file#5455279 a distance of 120 feet to a point on the west line of the east 280 feet;thence north 0°58'58"east along said west line to a point which bears north 64°34'52"west from the true point of beginning; thence south 64°34'52"east 274.6 feet to the true point of beginning. . •` • Prohibited uses include: furniture store,laundry,cleaning and pressing ,41i) establishment, locksmith or shoe repair shop, lumber yard or fuel yard,public garage,repair shop,battery service station or tire repair shop, fast food restaurant or any 24 hour restaurant,gas station,undertaking establishment,mobile home park, self-storage facility,24 hour convenience store, tavern,multi-family use, apartments, duplexes or condominiums, Any part of the property presently being • used for residential purposes shall not hereafter be used for residential uses other than single family.In addition,no part of the property not presently being used for or zoned for residential purposes shall be hereafter be used for residential purposes. • No new structure may be constructed on the property until the City removes sewer moratorium imposed by City Resolution#2392; change of use of existing structures consistent with the provisions of this covenant are acceptable. • No new structure may exceed a height of 35 feet. • An easement for ingress and egress to and from the Crookston Property from Union Ave.NE shall be established at a location mutually acceptable to the City and the applicant when the Crookston property is redeveloped.At such time when the Crookston property or any structure thereon is converted to commercial use, the Crookston property will no longer be entitled to ingress and egress from 12th St., except to the extent required by City emergency services. When converted to or used for commercial purposes,Dalpay property shall in no event be entitled to access from NE 12th St. Nand nn • A setback on the westerly 15 feet of the property is required.Landscaping and utilities is acceptable on the setback. • No new structures may be approved without a landscaping plan approved by the City and installed concurrent with development. See Rezone dated 1-12-84. R-83-033 D5 84'-110645 Lots 2 inclusive, and Lots 14, 15,46 and 47,Block 22,Hillman's Earlington Gardens Div.#1 e ept that portion conveyed for State Highway SR 405 and except that portion _ thereof for 1.d Ave. SW • A 20-foot s• back from any public right-of-way, the fust 10 feet of which must be landscaped. . - balance of the setback may be used for additional landscaping or parking, at the o er's discretion. • A 10 foot setback r>:aired along property lines abutting the Castcrline property, only if non residential , es occurred adjacent to the Casterline property while the Casterline property itsel uses for residential purposes. Expires 12-31-2025 03 : 'Awe 8405180709 t.10,Springbrook Acre Tracts,except that portion lying north of S. 192nd Street; also ; cept that portion platted as Hi Park Tracts; also except S. 192nd Street,more partic • ly described as follows: Comme• •'.g at a point on the north line of Section 6 T22N R5E from which the • northeast co •zi of said section bears south 88°27'05"east a distance of 724.03 feet; thence south 00° '36"west a distance of 30,06 feet to the intersection of the south line of S 192nd Street an. the west line of Tract 10 of Springbrook Acre Tracts and the true point of beginning; th- • - south 88°27'05"east,parallel with said section line and along said south line of S 192n. trcet 156 feet;thence continuing along said south line south 36°25'05"east 164.19 feet; ' ce continuing along said south line south 88°27'05"east parallel with said section line 8 .'4 feet; thencecontinuing along said south line north 37°32'55"east 117.08 feet; thence •uth 31°03'44"east along the west line of Hi-Park Tracts First Addition 98.83 feet; then -continuing along said wet line south 01°24'39" west 263.45 feet; thence continuing alon: .aid west line south 12°42'26"west a distance of 150.03 feet; thence continuing along sai• • est line south 15°54'53"west a distance of 252.26 feet to the north line of Tract 9A, Sprin_•rook Acre Tracts; thence north 85°41'13"west 354.92 feet; thence north 00°22' : 'east along said west line of Tract 10, Springbrook Acre Tracts 756.31 feet to the true poin •f beginning. • The owner(s), and their successors,heirs and as a.s agree to participate in, sign a petition in support of, and accept any future •cal Improvement District(LID) or city-initiated proposal and to pay th it fair share therefore for 3 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL 'n Al#: (a, Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: November 27, 2006 Dept/Div/Board. Development Services Division Staff Contact Kayren Kittrick x7299 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Approve Windstone II Short Plat as Final Plat Correspondence Ordinance Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue paper dated November 13, 2006 Study Sessions Neighborhood Map, Information Plat Map Resolution Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other IFiscal Impact: 0.00 Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment ‘ttarAmount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Request Council approval of Windstone II, a 3.6 acre short plat, generally located north of NE 17th Street at Mt. Baker Avenue NE with nine single family lots and one tract as a final plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Windstone II Final Plat and adopt the Resolution. • RentonnedagnbilU bh f).- PLANNING/BUILDING/�.• , , I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT '°P�N�o� MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: ' , Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerma A'ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Kayren K. Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor SUBJECT: Windstone II Final Plat Issue: Shall the council approve Windstone II,previously approved through the short plat process with a public hearing as a final plat? Background: Windstone II short plat proposed nine lots for future home construction and a surface water tract to be held in common and maintained by the future Homeowners Association or by a maintenance agreement between the future homeowners. With the proposed lot number being greater than four but less than ten, the short plat process included a public hearing before and approval by the Hearing Examiner. During the review for the approval of the Windstone II short plat for recording, the lot count was determined as exceeding the number of lots for a short plat due to the tract being included in the total. Tracts are commonly used for surface water facilities, access and egress, and occasionally for parks or other areas held in common within a short plat or plat and were not previously considered separate parcels. With a recent interpretation of RCW 58.17.020(6), tracts are now considered and counted in the final number of lots within a subdivision rather than just the building sites. The only differences between short plat approval of nine lots and a preliminary plat are the Hearing Examiner approval (rather than a Hearing Examiner recommendation to Council) and the requirement for Council approval of right-of-way dedications. The public hearing was held on January 4, 2005 and approved February 8, 2005. As part of the standard process for final short plat, a separate deed of dedication was sent to and approved by City Council on November 6, 2006. Construction of infrastructure and required improvements is complete, so the plat has applied for recording. Recommendation: Council approve Windstone II as a final plat. Z --- ----if .Ye / (RN 1 ,,ril R-1 • ., k _P r II : SE100thPl. .z.,- i I . . A�waillu rr EMEar� . ig 102 li ;TV . 1I ii kw. Aitteemilittp"*-4,.•1101 - 7 r-1Ir lim #41W411Vrt" Teltaligoll. APP. \ I ...1. v4,1 " .7 a i ri arm g=A iirl aiii , drids;_r44 F 11W-4117111:7410 all , .. irgorkb wariwis.m 2 •Vat 1 ,,- andlillistWill. 0 , , _, 1 .....„ al, ifiratim NE III z 1 AIN00 _�� Int ile --1 I . �; ��,�7��wpm i SE 104th St. SE 104t 1121 - ?ION -4 4 �/ 4t7Y af11T A �11t0." ` 0.4eA �i' Ire'` • o1�' �,.� .'' SIS' L7ii it lf: %/.�;a �_mom y Suns (r'�'■ ,To.; Win..; r 4 Abli* '151 11 7' )1 ,r--`•�� ■ %; rte* NR8 � t-t1r)/ M .a. i SE 112th P1. - SE113th 1-1 ITW i E6 - 10T23NRSEE1/2 4 T �TQ ZONING ----v.v. IlmtW - 4r ■ J 6 r/E M?ECRL aeRvxxs 1y'°DO J JLJ '"°' 3 T23N R5E E 1/2 5303 Ibltl i ''' .�;.,,..,� PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT LI - �711101116,1:1 �� n� 77,x, H J:Ii �'I 12.1111111112011•777/404 FOR .1' •°'a s ` STONE RIDGE u• 11 `i I'-40' E�Eid: ."X11.3 o ��.•>•r STrm� _ 171 ' 1 1 i a it�i a � A PORTION OF THE 8E.U4 OF SECTION 3,TOWNSHIP 23 N,RANGE 5 E,WM � ! Pin III tall WI.1,t 144 nim a 7r r::7 CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON 1` , wx AIM Ell!.II INIT^rirlel iu�Itla0/111MrmN 6 ` QIII l6Jt727/1,•1. '� ., M as n."'w•ix. �4�!v:-71•7,7ilirl tom_' �I II$ , \ 11\\ \ \ n,�m,z:7srsr r�s:T Q 3 111 / Al\ I \\\\ \ b 1. W —. `l r-+—\, -' eft 1 3i /, " 1D•_Y , ' / , , 4 VICINITY MAP 21"212a9 8 I.., Il t � I r ,�� \ l f l fir., ..-' 'C-. \ ,,T .. / ,/,...„/ ' a me w,aa,00. I i - :' i ( 1 11= ff;y / � %', /I \l v..�__ 1 �, as ,� r " mnwr,Mc wwM i oo �'�'j I I I'I, \\ �\f t / `� _ �!'--- .1 I // / I� a ravaaraup1.4.01 M I ` . MOND IMAM mlta rAAwx E <��`�� r 1\\ 1I `l\\ \ \�\` :\:\:".:-.1•;:-..."7";:) ,� b•� ..�i / / �i$ `.. ••/. ..:. �`s \��I�/I/ y Y- ,Y 11j` a MOM molt Ili pmo,a,I a Ely/4 .l' ,',..:\ \ 1 '''',..\:\'1 � a •\ '-\� Jib • /` I \ .°(,a1Cat! \\ -� I \\ 1 4• '� a rmIYYID WINO M tmmEM AL°YU/X) "[z� \\ A ;/,/ J \^ jy ,, maw amMNTMw U ri :r 1' \\ ,• \ �� Fru �T"cYpcs -�. •c`• #s a 1<k,� ` �•'r 1`\`\ \,I\ \, \ \' ,o_ =a \\\\ , _ E o g r.I �,r,oWWI IMO*/«K ti�',m.M,,, § r. Tin I -T-_\\\\\\\\:,,.:\,,\\\\\\\\,\\\\\,\,'A\\,\\ / t ,,�a ✓� �+ :./.i-, ~� ;� :;;\: jtit *r° t�nwva--- \ \ / i ii " \\ \ \ �II axnrrFmNw w Tuba a\ \1 \ ».,.� ,0 • mss. \ k :(;1•:,;71:••••4-.4;•--7214 V i t\ ;° F"a r gg j� r;..17.--='=,==---'-___.:=_,..9) � �`\p 1 4,..4 \ i.,1/ T\ It'''. .... 6 ..::20.....,.� <* r ,x .rammwwr.,M a°roaF. - J ` \i‘ •\'''e\%‘ g l 1 \ �\� +1S i, • u MAX w°ltm am i £ 0y• i ��\)r •,•` \ \ \ 1.:',.\• \/ /\/%/4:/,,Z-..-2 /'•• •rf4 '\-'7Y k \W , \I '114.y., la rmimm NW,mNaa, 3 '-_ a �\ \\.?;t3W; ..... �.. '4 — •! !•_ �\ • _C` \ 1 ��f�`� .. ''�I \ i WPM r.wwawmm/or« i IY __ �� q;5\7a... „ .0 .. ., y....., ,i ��/ . i� :a�• • .`�' \\. I � �r I ,a ,ua ar<,mam ar roast s• i i °' �i�\\\ eq� /�///if./* ''I'. / / iA. �/. / •s. `t / / /../ \ 7 \ \ )111 '/ /1 , , iL1/ a r°maM�um'°"ffe°mw i Foie sumeeno I 11 1 V 3 t ! ! '�� =z�3. .,�\\\\\\v'1� ' / >�tt;� ' �iI Ii— .y ��1 y'arTrrs.: P. \ .1 _ ', G'L'-' 11 ) i wUMW W/K 101°'aai'w""'iwi q� NW C -_ _�"�_\ • \`\\\ / ///fp/ I;i �_>i - — ,=_,- — Aim 3 ' I i "`'`": rI Y g \\I`µ� \\ \ \ \�\ // , r r,,,g,,Z-".'71 ,:,,�..._ I 5 -=.,�_-\ _ — — E.N.", ;� .' ,1, MO me,aFMIrmat,�o,r \ \\\ '\ \\._ ,C.jj E J , �,�, ._ii,4_ • '' -!' ', I 1INEI.OUR 140 °oxvaa �. t- 1 ,R,--__ .,•C �,., J,_C/Lxr 1ir ter^• F.� I V �� w p ' \ EtigillefflietateBlAtelaQB }g� ij $ � , t4 5"�R '9, ,� /!•;�h"1,'..--1,* �'-J�. i , �.�\\• '- r i. t `1 auIMYid11d At IOW01 0/411112.7413 K. 8G i '°Ni�„� ,,,+.LaYGa,. ' '''v- iraai � w. ,,,mak d y r* ,nv.� / I o� .ak ' J' .zi ,,,,' •Q,...r�•s,4 a ,ryF n +44,,,in �*+.+, .�-4 wm,•room a Au avr,r.a o , r �' .." OH " - ".aS. dISE+..x:H'a477'y- x�,l*FA '`�" -csr.nW gv9`m{#y" '.:Gfr 4'�'f�l�",��""`7'R.^iC{; I Y`'� 8'• --�� N �,.a,...„,,,2�i..z' 5k°t" 4 ,-,-t .. osr+3...71a,,- �"' i x,,. , aw ...4 _I21 it )■/ ...1--- ,�.° w�±� k ' y2 a u ttr.'It1Y WOR Ruc� 04 • _ ( —-11‘,,L....._I „OS�{'l �. !,a Y 'r No.�?�'c..a.l:�. �.r`=.wx,r..,WL;1..... `G.C' .'•; /VO 1. °�� S_ ' 20 �N3�' "�1 1� '•w�-y _ / /MA MUM ga.lOr af. - d a le 15 1 14 - L c �_- .q •, II/ L many mixtcTcuma.,aw nla+mxrlt ,� LOT AREA TABLE E I `-- - �'r S. •::1 j VI ' A rCOM 11104 r CCM umloarp = a A• s• .► .m. - .waAwr T1iAOT TABLE . I I :0 E P :i I 1 awn ar aoo:F. V 11�.L„0 •°°°'• a w,u, a ©-'�+v:O • A NET NNW W � • •fi • ,;x'tS 7 mam L�-fid owe W as ro • ,amt f r • am•q my TMM.TVG MFA m V. 0.H/1. lm M,IOW MM.MOWN LIE AMMO MASER ,Mom a mT rolmr. ° •°°'t NLe••t",wap' "°"'"'""m ,un v. "°°°"m'°'"•'rm>urmi�o•�,w mw Comm•srl�l.•MONO (�'3 WI a Le nu.Fu NM ,,... IaTN.lar.rF..I,aw Lau).aF.as 0•mM At rol,mM ar Tla auMra ar T,[wra,ao,,WIRY ra••,FMoaoM.; ��-uWMr,F Tm'R ro we,(y um) AIr.) [►� ,i ...aC IG MG n.1a7 taL]Y u..amW tn�,Y Aa. -4W amOMpM Mm —_ FWO"w°1 MaxIL.4"2 p airi"i"1".w W rW(k a •-MAN WIC TYN VICE WM (,Cyl 4 i ! •IG Mu irks emu samba AND,. Mae®' r mw i0 m MAW GN Tml j� rwd ■..'...i&-Ni...me W 1 ) al CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING FINAL PLAT(WINDSTONE II; FILE NO. LUA-04-124). WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is proper and advisable and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools, schoolgrounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth (The property, consisting of approximately 3.6 acres, is located in the vicinity of NE 17th St. and Mt. Baker Avenue NE) 1 RESOLUTION NO. is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department dated November 27, 2006. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1226:11/17/06:ma 4044.+ 2 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A WINDSTONE II LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT W, KING COUNTY, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER L00L0089, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20020702900007, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: Li Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Nov. 27, 2006 Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development Staff Contact Alex Pietsch (X6592) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. 2007 Legislative Priorities Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions 2007 Legislative Priorities memorandum Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Committee of the Whole Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment .Amount Budgeted N/A Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: At the beginning of each legislative session, the City Council approves a list of legislative priorities. This serves as guidance for City staff as it attempts to work with the Legislature to achieve the City's goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Renton City Council adopt the 2007 Legislative Priorities as proposed. CY O ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NoyUti,, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ' ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUMyr, DATE: November 20, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: _J- Kathy Keolker, Mayor K�� FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON 2007 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES INTRODUCTION: Prior to the start of each legislative session, the City Council approves an agenda outlining 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 evaluate legislative issues carried forward from previous years. This document sets forth "Basic Legislative Premises," and then lists 2007 issues in two categories: 1) Major Issues—those the Administration and staff have identified as significant, warranting the city's active efforts; and 2) Issues to Watch—those the City should put time and attention into supporting or opposing, and those that should be monitored and may at some point need to be supported or opposed. When the Washington State Legislature convenes its 105-day session in January 2007 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. In a broad sense, the legislative priorities emphasize Renton's goals of moving forward on major issues such as transportation, economic development, and local government financing. The draft 2007 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. BASIC LEGISLATIVE PREMISES: Legislation will be tracked that reflects the following premises established by Council over the past legislative sessions. These include: 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 2 11/20/2006 • All proposed legislation should provide local elected officials maximum flexibility in addressing the different needs and desires of their communities and allow cities to have a voice in determining the nature, scope and funding of local programs and services. • The City will strongly oppose any imposition of new or expanded requirements on local governments without additional funding to support these programs, as required by State law (RCW 43.135.060). • Renton will urge the Legislature to refrain from imposing or increasing fees on municipal services to fund State regulatory activities. • The City will strive 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: Municipal Finances Streamlined Sales Tax (SST) — local sales tax "sourcing" changes: The City has devoted considerable staff resources and effort the past three years to this high-priority issue which could seriously impact our revenue base. Renton helped forge a compromise among cities that calls for SST changes in local sales tax "sourcing"to be achieved in a way that fully mitigates negatively impacted jurisdictions. Department of Revenue "gain/loss" data shows about a $1 million/year loss for Renton from sourcing changes under a SST compliance bill. Fiscal note data shows the State can recoup its mitigation costs by gaining revenue from "voluntary compliance," a mechanism where multi-state retailers voluntarily contract with Washington and other SSTA states to remit online sales taxes back to states in exchange for back-tax amnesty and vendor fees. The compromise supported by a broad government-business-labor coalition keys off of this assumption. The City appreciates the 2006 Legislature's receptivity to SST legislation built on full-mitigation and the "voluntary compliance" revenue model. Substitute Senate Bill 6594 from the 2006 Legislature passed the Senate by a 48-0 vote but failed to clear the House, primarily due to timing issues rather than substantive ones. Renton will work actively to see a full-mitigation solution enacted in 2007. Capital Budget/Parks Sam Chastain Trail: Completion of the Chastain Trail is a legacy project for the City of Renton, one that will help tie together more than 52 miles of trail system, including the Cedar River Trail to the east, the Lake Washington Trail to the north, and the City of Seattle's Lake Washington loop and Burke-Gilman Trail to the west. The Chastain Trail will follow the southerly shoreline of Lake Washington and will connect Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to the Cedar River Trail via the Southport development and State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land. Total cost of the trail project is $5 million dollars covering the cost of one-half a mile of trail that needs to be built on land and over water, as well as easements, habitat enhancement, passive recreation improvements, and environmental and historical education opportunities. With local funding commitments, $1.4 million dollars that has been awarded through grants, and some likely federal discretionary funding, the gap in funding the trail is about $1 million dollars. Renton will actively pursue at least $1 million dollars in 2007-09 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 3 11/20/2006 Capital Budget "community projects" program funding to close the gap and ensure the trail can be constructed in 2008. Infrastructure and Economic Development Needs Funding for general infrastructure and infrastructure to assist with economic recruitment and retention projects: Renton will join AWC, a coalition of individual cities, and others in bringing to the 2007 Legislature a series of ideas and options for enhancing funding of general infrastructure needs and infrastructure that helps with economic recruitment and economic retention projects. Specific ideas likely to be "in play"include: • Enhance funding of existing infrastructure programs, most of which are significantly "over-subscribed." • Expedite the approval process for existing grants and loans — turnaround times from preliminary approval to funding allocations can run 18 to 36 months. • Obtain a credit against the State Real Estate Excise Tax(REET) that could be directed to the local level for infrastructure and economic development recruitment/retention projects. • Secure new economic development tools, including revisions to and expansion of the Local Infrastructure Financing Tools (LIFT) statute; revisions to the "Job Development Fund" to ensure it does not further impair the Public Works Trust Fund and to make it more responsive to job-generating projects; additional funds for the Governor's "Strategic Reserve Fund" as an economic recruitment tool; funding for "innovation zones" that attract industry sectors such as aerospace, information technology and the life sciences; permanent funding for the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB); and changes to make CERB more usable for urban areas. • Additional Capital Budget revenue for infrastructure through increased bonding. • Professional Sports Arena Financing: Renton may be actively involved in 2007 legislative deliberations regarding a financing package for a new arena to host the Seattle Supersonics and Storm professional basketball teams. A determining factor will be whether a Renton site is on the Sonics' short list of sites to construct a new facility. Transportation • Freight Mobility Project Funding - SW 27th St./ Strander Blvd: Renton will actively support a 2007 request by the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) that seeks to restructure the Board's list of projects to assure that funds can be spent on the most "ready-to-go" projects in the coming biennium. FMSIB hopes to move some money into Renton's SW 27t St project during the biennium, and the City will actively work with FMSIB on that front. iolime • 2007-2009 Budget — protect funding for projects in and near Renton: In its 2007-09 Transportation Budget process, the Legislature will be looking at how the 2005 "Transportation Partnership Act" (TPA) investment package for roads and transit may need 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 4 11/20/2006 to be revised and curtailed. Sharp spikes in the cost of construction materials such as asphalt and concrete are driving this re-examination of the 2005 TPA. Renton will work actively to protect funding for expansion of Interstate 405 through Renton, which has been identified as having the worst congestion of any stretch of freeway in the State, for freight mobility projects such as the Southwest 27t"/Strander Boulevard project, and for State Route 169. • Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) and Sound Transit — how a Fall 2007 ballot is structured: As the RTID and Sound Transit (ST) prepare to take a combined roads-and-transit ballot measure to voters in Fall 2007, the two regional agencies may be appealing to the 2007 Legislature for single-ballot authority. Under provisions in State statute adopted in 2006, the RTID and ST ballots are separate but contingent—meaning there are two ballot questions for voters and both have to succeed in order for either to move forward. Renton wants to ensure that a regional transportation financing package has the best possible chance for success and will actively involve itself in legislative discussions regarding the RTID/ST ballot. • Transportation "governance" for the Central Puget Sound: The 2007 Legislature will be considering recommendations from a nine-member Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) that is evaluating how roads-and-transit functions are governed in the Central Puget Sound. The RTC formed in response to legislative provisions of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2871 (ESHB 2871), and the Governor appointed its nine members. At this point, it appears the RTC may recommend to the Legislature that a new regional entity be established to oversee regional planning and financing of transportation in the Central Puget Sound. Because transportation is such a critical issue for Renton, the City will be actively involved in legislative discussions that look at how something such as a new regional entity will impact transportation providers. Annexation Policy Renton is working hard to implement the Growth Management Act (GMA). Annexation, a key tenet of GMA in terms of directing the responsibility for the provision of urban services to cities, is of tremendous importance to the City. Renton has one-third of the population of all urban unincorporated lands in King County designated as potential annexation area (PAA). If Renton were to annex all of this territory, the City's population would approach 120,000, double the current population of the City, and make it the fifth largest city in the State. Therefore, Renton will support additional measures that better facilitate the timely annexation of its PAAs, while mitigating potential impacts on levels of service for our existing residents. Specifically, Renton will: • Pursue changes in annexation law to allow for orderly transition of library district facilities: Current State statute contains several chapters of law on what types of transitions and triggers occur when a city annexes or assumes area occupied by a water-sewer district or fire district-- but no such provisions of law exist to govern the transition that takes place when a municipality with its own library system annexes county- or regionally-operated library districts. This gap in State law could have a significant impact on residents of unincorporated areas outside Renton, such as the Skyway area. Some Skyway residents have indicated a high degree of interest in annexing into Renton,partly because these residents agreed to pay additional property taxes to bond-finance King County Library System • 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 5 11/20/2006 improvements to the Skyway Library- improvements that have never been constructed and err likely will not be constructed anytime in the foreseeable future. Yet under current law, Renton has no process, and no guidance within statute, to help it negotiate a transition of the Skyway library facility out of KCLS ownership and into City of Renton ownership. Renton, likely to be joined by the City of Seattle, will actively pursue legislation to establish a transition process for county or regional library facilities to transfer over to municipalities upon annexation. • Reduce the lag time for unincorporated area property tax revenues to shift to city governments upon annexation: Renton will explore legislative fixes to ensure that upon an annexation of a previously-unincorporated area, property tax revenues generated in that area can shift immediately from a county treasury to city funds. Under current practice, counties can delay that shift by a year or more while they wait for new property tax assessment dates (typically, March 1) to kick in. This delays receipt of funding that can assist cities with providing services and facilities to newly annexed areas. Law Enforcement, Courts, General Government& Miscellaneous • Automobile theft prevention — stiffer penalties, funding for efforts to combat theft: Washington has the dubious distinction of ranking in the top five among all states in the nation when it comes to incidences of automobile theft. The auto theft problem is a major one in the Central Puget Sound and especially in King County. Renton police deal with three to four reported thefts per day on average. For that reason, the City has been part of a stakeholders' group working with State legislators on the development of auto theft Now prevention legislation. Renton will strongly support and actively advocate for legislation to stiffen and simplify the penalties for auto theft, to crack down on those who use certain tools to steal cars, and to provide funding to help local jurisdictions combine their efforts and combat auto theft cases that cross jurisdictional lines. • Derelict vessels: Renton will work with the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), King County, and others to identify $500,000 in State funding that can be tapped to finance the full cost of removing two abandoned dry docks that are off-shore from the Port Quendall site on Lake Washington in North Renton. Removal of these dry docks is one of DNR's highest priorities. The City also believes removal of the dry docks is critical, particularly with the Seattle Seahawks poised to construct a$62 million headquarters and practice facility at Port Quendall,which is scheduled to open in 2008. OTHER ISSUES TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE & TRACK/MONITOR Municipal Finance • Unfunded mandates, prevent tax erosion, home rule: Renton will oppose efforts to impose new unfunded or "under-funded" mandates without corresponding funding. Renton also will oppose proposed tax-policy legislation that infringes on, undermines, or eliminates local tax authority without corresponding new authority to offset revenue losses. New • Property tax levy lid lift authority: Renton will support efforts by AWC and individual cities to add more flexibility to State statute that provides cities and counties with the option 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 6 11/20/2006 of taking six-year property tax levy lid lifts to their citizens. Current statute hinders flexibility by imposing "non-supplanting" requirements and dictating when measures must go to the ballot. • Efficiency and cost-reduction measures: Renton will to support legislative initiatives to promote greater efficiency and cost-savings in providing local government services. For example, the City will support efforts to decrease probation liability exposure, address offender medical costs, restore authority to collect jail booking fees, and exempt local governments from being charged for Washington State Patrol (WSP)background checks. • Hotel/Motel Tax—restore flexibility in how the tax revenues may be expended: A recent State Attorney General's Office (AGO) opinion has cast doubt on the authority of cities and counties to use hotel/motel tax revenues toward community events and festivals that draw visitors and tourists. The AGO would restrict the use of hotel/motel tax revenue to only the "advertising and marketing" costs of such festivals. Renton will support a legislative initiative led by AWC to remedy the AGO and ensure that hotel/motel tax revenues can be spent more flexibly, including using these revenues toward the overall costs of putting on community events and festivals. • PERS/LEOFF pension issues, family and medical leave expansion, sick leave expansion: As important to Renton as protecting its revenue authority is protecting against measures that impose new costs on the City. Renton has worked hard to contain its health care costs by using triggers that institute co-pays and redesigning of the benefit program. Still, significant healthcare cost increases are being factored into the 2007 budget. Even more dramatically, Renton is dealing with recent pension rate increases that have tripled its pension costs over the last two years, adding $1.8 million in new pension liabilities. Renton will work with AWC and other stakeholders to hold the line on pension, FMLA, and sick-leave costs, and raise concerns with any legislative initiatives that would impose new costs in these areas. Transportation • Local funding options: While the Legislature has been reluctant to grant cities and counties with new funding options to address local road needs, lawmakers did make progress in 2006 with "Transportation Benefit District" (TBD) authority granted to local governments as part of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2871. AWC and certain cities and counties likely will approach the Legislature with legislation to make the TBD authority subject to only "councilmanic" approval (rather than voter approval) under certain conditions. Renton will support this legislation. • PSRC Executive Board voting seats: Renton will support legislation to establish criteria in statute for future voting seats on the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Executive Board, while also making permanent prior transportation budget provisos that granted new automatic voting seats to Renton, Bellevue, Kent, and Federal Way. • Task Force on concurrency for WSDOT: During the 2006-07 interim, a legislatively r.r✓ appointed task force has been examining transportation concurrency issues and how this impacts WSDOT. Some legislators want WSDOT to be allowed to receive impact fees for 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 7 11/20/2006 local development projects that impact the State highway system — if WSDOT is not given the ability to comment on local permitting proposals and help shape the mitigation and impact fee part of the permit. Renton believes that nearly all cities already work hard to solicit the views of WSDOT on development projects that impact the State highway system. However, the City may be open to legislation, if carefully worded, which provides an impact fee authority to WSDOT in cases where a locality has not contacted WSDOT and solicited its input on a project. Infrastructure Financing and Economic Development Funding/Tools • "Community Investment District" proposal, other proposals that further the objective of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in State statute: The State of Washington has a very limited TIF statute, and Renton will support ideas to broaden it, including an expected initiative from the Kitsap County area that would establish "Community Investment Districts" where cities and counties can receive incremental revenues to invest in and debt- service the cost of infrastructure that draws new development activity. • Oppose imposition of new affordable housing requirements for 10-year property tax exemption program: Renton supports a current economic development tool in State statute that allows certain cities to use a 10-year property tax exemption for multi-family housing as a way to draw that housing — and accompanying development — into downtown areas. Certain stakeholders may bring to the Legislature a proposal that would dictate a certain percentage of such housing being comprised of"affordable housing." Renton believes such Now, legislation would be an infringement of local authority and believes that such decisions should remain at the local level. • Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF): Renton will support efforts to protect the integrity of the PWTF. While the City supported the new infrastructure and jobs creation/jobs retention grant program under the 2005-enacted "Jobs Development Fund," it would prefer that future funding for the Jobs Development program not be established in a way that diverts money from the PWTF. • Parks and recreation funding initiatives, Washington Wildlife, Recreation, and Parks (WWRP): Renton will support efforts to enhance funding for the WWRP program in the 2005-07 Capital Budget. A coalition of interests is proposing that biennial capital budget funding for the WWRP increase from$50 million to $100 million. Land-Use • Civil warrants: If a coalition of cities and building officials brings forth legislation to enhance the authority of local governments to inspect properties that are suspected of being unsafe, dilapidated, and run down, Renton will support it. • Affordable housing/GMA: During the summer and fall of 2006, stakeholders sitting on an Affordable Housing Task Force worked on a package of ideas designed to spur the 44ft"' development of more affordable housing units in our State, and especially in the Central Puget Sound. An Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) that makes 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 8 11/20/2006 recommendations to the Governor has now adopted a consensus task force package. The package looks at new funding for infrastructure, certain modifications to the GMA, new economic development tools, etc. Renton will support the Affordable Housing/GMA package adopted by AHAB, provided it is not weighed down with attempts to foist costly new GMA requirements on cities and counties involving buildable lands, land capacity, housing targets, etc. • Housing issues involving Buildable Lands and housing targets: Renton is sympathetic to the goals and objectives of housing availability and land supply for housing under the GMA. However, the City does have concerns with any potential legislative proposals that would introduce new definitional and data-collection requirements to the Buildable Lands program that will add new costs and requirements for cities. • Exclusionary Zoning: In 2007, a low-income housing coalition is likely to promote legislation that would prohibit local governments from having any ordinances or land-use policies that allow for certain types of housing and housing providers to be excluded from a community or from certain zones. Renton will closely review any legislation in this arena— and will want to ensure it does not constitute an unfunded mandate or an attack on home rule. • SEPA reform: Renton supports reforms of the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) that help avoid duplicative and overlapping requirements in the local permit process. Some cities and developer interests contend that SEPA ends up requiring another layer of environmental review that is already covered under existing local codes (such as traffic mitigation, drainage, etc.). • Best Available Science (BAS): Renton will monitor efforts to better define BAS and provide more flexibility for local jurisdictions in making BAS determinations. Law Enforcement, Courts, General Government& Miscellaneous • Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice/Jails Funding: With the cost of local law enforcement and local jail facilities continuing to increase sharply, Renton will support legislative initiatives that seek to steer additional funding into local law enforcement, criminal justice, and jail facility operations and maintenance. • Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) funding: Renton strongly supports maintaining adequate funding for the CJTC, which operates a required training academy for newly hired police officers. • Identity theft: Renton will support measures brought forward by law enforcement that provide citizens with new tools to prevent identify theft. • Theft of copper and other scrap metals: Renton will support legislation to require new proof-of-ownership and registration for those who attempt to sell copper and other valuable metals to pawn shops and second-hand dealers. The problem of copper theft from building construction sites is a growing one in the Central Puget Sound. 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 9 11/20/2006 • Funding for emergency response, HazMat, etc: Renton will support initiatives by law enforcement to ensure dedicated streams of funding for emergency management and hazardous materials response efforts. In conjunction with the Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs, Renton specifically supports the funding to create three state-funded regional hazardous material response teams in King County, including a team in South King County. This will allow jurisdictions to leverage limited resources to mobilize an effective hazardous material response for incidents throughout the county. • Interrogating juveniles in criminal investigations: Renton will support legislation that would require police to attempt to notify the parents of a juvenile brought in for interrogation as part of a criminal investigation. The City would, however, join other law enforcement interests in opposing legislation that goes further and would potentially undermine the integrity of investigations by requiring that a parent be present at all interrogations, or consulted on what questions may and may not be asked. • Drug seizure proceeds: Renton will join law enforcement interests in opposing any legislative initiative that seeks to redirect the proceeds from drug seizures from drug enforcement 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. • Gun control measures — closing the gun-show loophole, safe storage of firearms: Renton will support this legislation. Now- • Municipal Court Services Flexibility—"Community Courts:" Renton supports efforts by AWC and other cities to clarify State statute to ensure that cities can contract with one another for the provision of Municipal Court services across boundary lines (sometimes called"Community Courts"). • Probation liability reform: Renton will support efforts to limit liability exposure for local governments that are operating probation programs. Cities and counties should be held liable for damages for egregious acts or on-the-job mistakes, but they cannot be expected to control the actions of offenders 24-hours a day. • Public Disclosure Act — protect privacy of information of those enrolling in local parks programs: Renton will support legislation to protect the private social security records and other privileged information of those who sign up for local parks programs. • Alternative public works contracting methods: The City will support extension and possible expansion of the law that permits certain local government entities to use alternative public works contracting methods known as "design-build" and "General Contractor- Construction Management"on large projects. • Protect public works bidding laws and contractor claims laws from being undermined: Renton believes the public is well-served by current laws dealing with contractor and Nr► subcontractor bids for public works projects—and by statutes governing the conditions under which contractors can file claims for payments when notice provisions have not been met. 2007 Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 10 11/20/2006 Renton will join AWC/cities, counties, ports, and others in opposing potential legislation that weakens local authority in these areas or adds new costs and/or liability exposure to the process. • Stormwater -- Phase II permits administered by State Department of Ecology (DOE) under the federal Clean Water Act: Renton is working with numerous other jurisdictions and AWC to ensure there is a reality check on a soon-to-be-issued final permit from the DOE in the area of stormwater. DOE, under its authority to administer certain provisions of the federal Clean Water Act, has issued a draft permit that would regulate stormwater flows and standards for Renton and over 100 other "Phase II" jurisdictions as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The concern is that the permit, in its current draft, contains very costly provisions related to effectiveness monitoring, as well as provisions requiring that redevelopment of existing surfaces meet a "pre-forested condition" standard. Local jurisdictions strongly believe the pre-forested condition provision would result in legal "takings" claims by property developers. While 2007 legislation is unlikely, cities are working with legislators to help push DOE to modify these draft permit provisions. • Water-Sewer Districts —assumption of districts upon annexation: Renton will team with AWC and other individual cities in protecting existing "assumption" authority. The City is willing to look at compromises to resolve this issue. • Authority to trap rodents on public property: Renton will support legislation to provide cities and counties with explicit authority to trap rodents such as gophers and moles that can Nod cause major damage to public property if left unchecked. • Oppose possible attack on franchising authority: Renton will join with AWC and others in strongly opposing any attempt by the telecommunications industry to weaken local authority in franchising, rights-of-way management, and utility tax revenue collection. • Cost recovery for residential fire-suppression sprinkler systems: During the 2006 session, cities 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 resist this type of legislation if it emerges in 2007. • Gambling establishment zoning: Renton supports efforts by AWC and other cities to clarify local decision-making authority over the zoning and location of gambling establishments. • Public health - protect/continue State funding of: Renton supports measures to ensure the State continues to do its part to fund public health. cc: Jay Covington,CAO Administrators Doug Levy,Legislative Consultant Suzanne Dale Estey,EDNSP Director CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL • AI#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP Department/Neighborhoods& November 27, 2006 Strategic Planning Division Staff Contact Don Erickson(6581) Agenda Status X Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Maplewood Addition Annexation Second Public Correspondence.. Hearing on Zoning and Effectuation Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Certification Document Information Annexation Ordinance R-4 Zoning Ordinance Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur to set public meeting on December 11, Legal Dept X 2006. Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment kiwiAmount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Although the City had invoked the BRB's jurisdiction and asked it to expand the boundaries of the original 60.5 acre site, which it did to some 340 acres, a recent state Supreme Court decision regarding the legality of such expansions by the Board, suggests that the City can only revert back to the original 60.5 acre annexation. Under State law, the City is required to hold at least two public hearings on future zoning for an annexation area. The first of these public hearings was held on April 4, 2005. At this public hearing, Council agreed to accept the 60%Direct Petition and forward the Notice of Intent to the Boundary Review Board. Council at that time considered R-8 zoning, consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential Single Family(RS) for the original 60.5 acre annexation site. However, staff mentioned that the City was looking at changing this designation to Residential Low Density(RLD) as part of that year's Comp Plan Map Amendments. The designation for this area was amended in December 2005 to RLD. The Administration is recommending Council annex the original 60.5 acres and zone it R-4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set December 11, 2006 for a public hearing on the original 60.5-acre annexation. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh C- CITY OF RENTON C.) cm vt ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC YP�N�O� PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Renton City Councilmembers VIA: JL, Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: l Alex Pietsch, Administrator - Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (6581) SUBJECT: Maplewood Addition Annexation ISSUES: • In light of the state Supreme Court's recent decision in the Rose Hill case 4,4100, invalidating the Boundary Review Board's authority to expand annexation boundaries without the consent of property owners in the expanded area the question now is, whether Council wishes to accept the original 60.5-acre Maplewood Addition Annexation,before it was expanded? + If the Council decides to accept the original 60.5-acre annexation, does it supports rezoning the non-street portions of the annexation site R-4, consistent with the existing Residential Low Density Comp Plan Land Use Map designation shown for this area? • Does Council wish to have the first reading of the effectuation and zoning ordinance the night of the public hearing? BACKGROUND: The Council accepted a 60% Direct Petition to Annex approximately 60.5-acres in April 2005 (Figure 1, Vicinity Map) for this annexation. At that time, the Council authorized the administration to submit a Notice of Intent package to the BRB and invoke the Board's jurisdiction in order to include the area to the east along the Cedar River Valley floor. Because of aquifer protection, landslide and flood prevention/mitigation, fishery habitat, and highway related land use issues, staff made the case to the Board that control over this larger area was in the City's best interest. '‘hely At its public hearings, on May 4, 2006, the Board concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support Renton's request to expand the Maplewood Addition Maplewood Addition Annexation 2 11/20/06 Annexation. In May 2006, the Board issued its findings and decision expanding the annexation area to approximately 346 acres. The BRB concluded that the modified annexation was timely based upon the City's current and historical commitment to guide development and provide municipal services to the area. On August 7, 2006, the Council held its first of at least two required public hearings on zoning for this area and at that time accepted the findings and decision of the BRB, expanding the boundaries of this proposed annexation to approximately 346 acres, and supported future zoning consistent with the current and/or proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations for this area. It also directed staff to begin preparing the necessary zoning and effectuation ordinances. On November 9, 2006, the Washington State Supreme Court, in the matter of Interlake Sporting, Appellants, versus Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County (BRB), City of Redmond, Respondents, issued its decision that the BRB erred, as a matter of law, by expanding the original annexation area for which there was a petition, 184 acres, finding that property owners residing outside of the original 59 acre"had no opportunity to sign or oppose the petition for annexation." This ruling invalidated the expanded 184-acre annexation. DISCUSSION: Since the facts surrounding the BRB action with the Rose Hill Annexation are virtually the same as the Maplewood Addition Annexation as it was expanded, staff believes this and all similar annexations that have not been effectuated, probably are also invalid. Staff, on the advice of the City Attorney, has decided to reactivate the original 60.5-acre annexation that '4401# had a 60%petition certified by the County Assessor's Office, and for which Council held a public hearing. Reasons for doing so include the fact that it will have been over two years since the original petition had been submitted to the City. Part of the delay had to do with the City agreeing to allow this annexation to be heard by the BRB at the same time they considered the proposed Fairwood incorporation proposal. At the time of the first public hearing, the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for this 60.5 acre area was Residential Single Family (RSF). Staff noted that the City was processing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would change this designation to Residential Low Density (RLD) that year. In December 2005, this amendment was adopted. The proposed public hearing on December 11, 2006 would be second of at least two required public hearings on zoning, at which R-4 zoning was considered for this area. Fiscal Analysis: Staff has conducted a fiscal analysis (see attached worksheet) for the proposed annexation area. This analysis assumed 161 dwelling units in the area with an estimated population of 403 people. The assessed value for the 60.5-acre annexation area is $30,841,300. The net estimated annual fiscal cost to the City from the existing area is approximately$31,523 in 2005 dollars. Because the area is virtually built-out, this figure is not anticipated to change as a consequence of future development. Other costs include an estimated $11,750 to bring road surfaces up to City standards and $159,887 as a prorated one-time cost to bring H:\EDNSP\PAA\Annexations\Maplewood Addition\New Effectuation Issue Paper.doc\cor • Maplewood Addition Annexation 3 11/20/06 the area up to City parks and recreation standards. Because of the lack of new development in this built-out area, no mitigation fees would be collected to reduce this Now one-time estimated shortfall. FINDINGS: The 60.5-acre annexation is essentially consistent with City policies related to annexation as well as BRB objectives and criteria for annexations. No impediments to the provision of City services to the area have been identified. The City already provides fire service through Fire District No. 25 to the area and, although future parks and recreation improvements are needed to bring this area up to City standards, the City has recreational facilities including the Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park immediately across the highway to the north. Water service will continue to be provided to the area by the Maplewood Addition Water Cooperative. If, in the future, residents of the Water Cooperative decide to hook up to City water, the City has the necessary infrastructure next door in the Maplewood Garden subdivision to serve this area. CONCLUSION: The Maplewood Addition Annexation has been determined by the BRB to be consistent with relevant BRB Objectives, the Growth Management Act, the County and City's Comprehensive Plans, and the City's Business Plan. It would therefore appear to be in the City's interest to proceed with this annexation of unincorporated territory within Renton's designated Potential Annexation Area. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is recommending that Council approve the Maplewood Addition Annexation, as originally proposed, in light of the recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling invalidating a similar annexation that had been expanded by the BRB: The Administration is also urging Council to support future R-4 zoning consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map RLD designation for this area, and hold the first reading of the effectuation ordinance and R-4 zoning ordinance, if it concurs with this recommendation. Attachments cc: Jay Covington Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Don Erickson H:\EDNSP\PAA\Annexations\Maplewood Addition\New Effectuation Issue Paper.doc\cor IF 40y � i ilii►��♦��y`'v`' WI �.��ss �t1 �� —LL_ "■■■nl is�.. ��z ! : min . �,. '- �iy911111111ii11i ��ii a`�.e� s - MImo --cia um 11:�� .. .-c�°R ��,,.(.� f �it jA, stip ,��., / av"" ��` ' �1il� 14�� RI Trip --� ¢' =maim —��► �4 �:4 ,�� sOLII VIN�Ralan■gg iii mum �� oMilinla sir14 MU mitre mi , \ k , 1v 1♦11 40 11�� 4 4.10 ••►11 a in'l NEM Win MI �� C li, �� At % . iMNdmien S � X41 �'v h,a sou O0 ■■■ mor -.. 11011 ■ - 0 , ' 11,. POw. I / —I . R,�`�� 69-''� I L� ----------„:,,,,, , -''/ 7 ' l e• *O yonleg* ,pc, , 4*o 40 voltop pAt • �``� _ ,�. 4 ,.., Hills Dr SE 'i ; ,-/rd► �. 4►¢'� f, 'is `--, s �� ♦: ' foo , bi•z . .�► •y,I'/l�/�� , &.,44� N ---gip!_ �ai� t4119i AIL,* 1►Alfjf��►f�1 ��► f�• 411 ILr;� - ' , . qil -w! r 4.%IP.011),,, IV", 41,104 as itstin-11 8,Vim. Vail ----- -------- at tib��' om �;�j•�i►."�`�i�'�.�ill',. I ► �'�.i�;�\'�I� \ .-..,..,,, . , ♦Li MUM LW* aig44#.::::::47;:: 14 t1 tx gnaw Ami` vOn - ai ti 1a♦ 1�.�iv�� z W►, �,�♦ ra It; 441 • : 1111111811111spew ♦► w � �j1 �\sh ND 41 Asi I Artotrirli s; 111 illleft '40a; wfei■fudEr111 1"ff 14v \ • 4fc .�/ `� �1�►� II una �� /14161111111rtilitAiltik.�f��1r ff�. Wc�u��►�SZ• �i iil'li�i:1��►wlf�err.s% �fJ�i.■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■.r.I. alp. �I��lleimir L ■■. ►- Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation 0 1000 2000 Figure 1: Vicinity Map -- - Current City Limits Isiasamismoosalmassammossmag oa Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning I I Annexation Area 1 : 12000 .1 1. Alex Piefsch,Adminisiraior /y� G. 'Rosario 2 ber 2004 tigi) King County Department of Assessments Scott Noble King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue,Room 708 Assessor Seattle,WA 98104-2384 (206)296-5195 FAX(206)296-0595 Email:assessor.info®metrokc.gov www.metrokc.gov/assessor/ ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted March 8, 2005 to the King County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senior Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Maplewood Addition Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of ,41600, such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the New Section of Revised Code of Washington, Section 35.13.002. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 10th day of March, 2005 0000-08%4n4-77140,-- Scott Noble, King County Assessor :, •Eaffo,202L4 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF RENTON (MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-04-009) WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 as amended, a petition in writing requesting that certain territory of approximately 60.5 acres contiguous to the City of Renton, be annexed to the City of Renton, was presented and filed with the City Clerk on or about December 8, 2004; and WHEREAS, prior to the filing and circulation of said 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 upon public hearing thereon, it having been determined and the petitioning owners having agreed to assume their fair share of the pre-existing outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton as it pertains to the territory petitioned to be annexed; and to accept that portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the territory including the applicable Zoning Code relating thereto; and WHEREAS, the King County Department of Assessments has examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexation and determined that the signatures represent at least sixty percent (60%) of the assessed value (excluding streets) of the original area that petitioned to be annexed, as provided by law; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning (EDNSP) Department of the City of Renton, having considered and recommended the annexing of the 60.5 acre site to the City of Renton; and 1 ORDINANCE NO. 4441r.• WHEREAS, the City Council fixed April 4, 2005, as the time and place for public hearing in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Renton, Washington, upon the petition and notice thereof having been given as provided by law; and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the EDNSP Department of the City of Renton recommended expansion of said annexation and Council concurred, authorizing the City of Renton to invoke the jurisdiction of the King County Boundary Review Board; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton invoked the jurisdiction of the King County Boundary Review Board on April 21, 2005, in order that it might consider expansion of the original 60.5 acre site to include properties primarily to the east along the Renton — Maple Valley Highway; and WHEREAS,the King County Boundary Review Board held a public hearing to consider this matter on May 8, 2006, and issued a resolution and hearing decision on June 9, 2006, deeming the"Notice of Intention" for the original 60.5 acre site approved with modifications that expanded it to approximately 340 acres; and WHEREAS, the City Council met on August 7, 2006, at the time and place specified for a public hearing upon the resolution and hearing decision of the King County Boundary Review Board, as well as future zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the decision of the Boundary Review Board expanding the original boundaries of said annexation to approximately 340 acres as said meeting; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled on November 9, 2006, that the King County Boundary Review Board erred as it was without authority to expand the boundaries w 2 ORDINANCE NO. of a similar annexation in Redmond from 58.96 acres to 184 acres, and such expansion was in violation of due process; and WHEREAS, it is likely that the Maplewood Addition—Expanded Annexation would be similarly ruled upon by the Supreme Court of Washington, if challenged; and WHEREAS, the City Council fixed December 11, 2006, as the time and place for a second pubic hearing in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Renton, Washington, on future zoning and acceptance of the annexation and notice thereof having been given as provided by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said notices, this second public hearing has been held at the time and place specified in the notices, and the Council has considered all matters in that all legal requirements and procedures of the law applicable to the petition method for annexation have been met; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton is concurrently zoning the non-street portions of the annexation site R-4, four units per net acre, consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L All requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by petition method, including the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140 and 150, 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, and such annexation shall be effective on and after the approval, passage, and publication of this 3 ORDINANCE NO. Now Ordinance; and on and after said date the property shall constitute a part of the City of 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 60.5 acres, is primarily located along the south side of SE Renton — Maple Valley Highway east of Maplewood Gardens and west of the Cedar River where it crosses under the SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway]; and the owners of the property within the annexation shall assume their fair share of the outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton as prescribed in RCW 35A.14.120 as it pertains to the property, 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 thirty days after its publication. Noy A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, and as otherwise provided by law. 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 4 ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1286 B:11/20/06:ma 5 Exhibit "A" MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the east half(1/2) of Section 21 and the west half(1/2) of Section 22, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying southwesterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 3945, southeasterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 2170, northeasterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 3723, said City Limits at this location also being the thread of the Cedar River, and northerly and northwesterly of the thread of the Cedar river, from a point on the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance Nos. 3945 and 4156, said point being the southerly terminus of the common boundary between said Ordinances on the thread of the Cedar River, downstream to an intersection with said City Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 3723. fir•• 1111 I u 111 ir rouippilmirm 44 . !!ft' W� iAtli 1LPa omit 4...7 � .i . _... _.. _m_ lw ___?,..„.17,171 ........ _ _ _ , �►/11]II�L'alIEL'IIIIIr1j�� I/ ' MIll Mgt � r� iii �t�� r� �i �� ,�r. �!! '!' 1-: � ��: _� �� • J I♦ ll ' EN ' inlet inlet Sit i \,.... � onto 4 ♦ �t�� 74 ^ X11111 0** St ft 4d6lAial 12,1111.4 IV mei lig= En ik 1-rz' rfokilf-V. MO OWN it mil � i INN � mos unman mu in inRCEL r �� (� ' III �� *.m iiimili 2 � 4tOwitilrA �,''i:ljt.s /�/ tai ' . r lie • . #11 Hills p� SE i . � t.� „., K4 ''s"-----„,_ st ' / :�,:.: �� ;;�4:lily " � �,, z+ R: ton iwilimlf/iiiiiiiii;.(„ ♦e� IL ♦ �1 II SII , ►�* <a �r' lle • � Mk � l�w�.�frY4 .4 I44.'4.IPS.0 m ik ra• ,: �' l:; 1 los II , '%4111101111114,W L1116/�°..)i. O•# �i�. ♦♦• 0 lair` .jam. i gm ii. _ ♦i��i•��, do �pkiuslitirttn* ��j.�4410 , _/I'I t _�4.02.r .�-.._....__._ I 1 •11 ��1�� .r I■■■■1►♦�i �1 o c v h � — r• kit wig .��♦ Ari, 31 I�., •�� rj .�►a rs.a •v. .. s �I�;,��i��r1��. . 11111►r` ��= ��INN 0 11/ w•tiab r , till.1017:11141011101.2,11:01P41,44irkwiAlift....a I ti IfIlliftl$. gi P."Sal * OVA PS W � �ig11wV Itillfti. vs* I � .1Alb 47 ro `‘VI&gall iiiis EiZ mega-{ _ • 111110kit•4'1" ; „ eab,•as gIan- • � - rim' itn► l, �pul lLW AF� �� ! _■■■u■■u ■ ■u■■■�■ � d Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation 0 1000 2000 Figure 1: Vicinity Map -- -- Current City Limits MUM • G , Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Annexation Area Alez P,o•ech.Administrator 1 . 1 2000 io . •' 21 2004 .. ( S' . CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM R-4 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL 4 DU PER ACRE, KING COUNTY ZONING), R- 12 12 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL 12 DU PER ACRE, KING COUNTY ZONING), NB (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, KING COUNTY ZONING), AND R-A5 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 1 DU PER 5 ACRES, KING COUNTY) TO R-4 (RESIDENTIAL 4 DU/AC; FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE) (MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-04-009). WHEREAS,under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and Now WHEREAS, said property owners of the original 60.5 acres petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning; and WHEREAS, said annexation having been expanded by the Boundary Review Board of King County to approximately 340 acres; and WHEREAS, said enlarged annexation area having previously been approved and the property annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing on the expanded annexation being held on August 7, 2006, and the second hearing being held on September 11, 2006; and WHEREAS, pending Comprehensive Plan amendments, if adopted, may allow zones other than just the R-4 zone in the subject area in the future; and 1 • ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, said zoning request being in general conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having 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 L The following described property as hereinbelow specified, in the City of Renton, is hereby zoned to R-4. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the EDNSP Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning,to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said property, approximately 291.0 acres, is primarily located along the south side of SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway east of Maplewood Gardens and west of 162" Avenue SE, if extended, but also includes that portion north of said highway east of R9n Regis Park and west of the new Cedar River bridge at approximately 152 Avenue SE,if extended, excluding streets;] SECTION IL This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor 2 ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1287:9/5/06:ma low 3 Exhibit "A" MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION R-4 REZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the east half(1/2) of Section 21 and the west half(1/2) of Section 22, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East,W.M., in King County, Washington, lying southwesterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 3945, southeasterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 2170, northeasterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 3723, said City Limits at this location also being the thread of the Cedar River, and Northerly and northwesterly of the thread of the Cedar River, from a point on the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance Nos. 3945 and 4156, said point being the southerly terminus of the common boundary between said Ordinances on the thread of the Cedar River, downstream to an intersection with said City Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 3723, except streets. • , C:3 ( a ' ,,,... -' e N 'VI l' ( , \ z R '',, \,-;13,.. 1,11. e • .0 4:0;.... ..:,r.k;. 3.,4;: ,„,;.:: :;,,,,r,,-, . .'" _, .,,, tig kie-t, ,*,,,,,',17 -4,c,..m-:,:,4:::::::',..-r -,, c ,.t.::,,4:.:,„',-:- ,,,,,, •' ' -------,„______ ___ _ --_-_--, ,s, ,,,,,,,-;,: it,$.;:•,:m,.,::,.:,,,,.:.:.4::...„;:- . ..A.iiy ., .000 11111 - =,:. -4--. , :Vv..:'; ;',.'-:,,ki ,-";:,,,,;„.„':,:i:ii4'.,*,11.:4.47,-,t,,-,,k1.•4 :790" ,,,,,,,,,,, • A.,,,/,..:,.,,,,,,,,,. .,;.,:„..,,.:,,,,,„,,,;,,,,,;3:.:,,,,,,;,.7,,y,,,,,,,,,,,,ik,..0,,,,,,,,,i5:-.„1.,,,a,,,,,4; ',NOP*14"/ , '' C------ t2C list°1111 u et gCe45,A 1.3.1. iiii 4 e. 4•4.N444'',1,s4_4 0pC4ip*,boV.V,4i•r?‘o•l,10l,60.k.f3lik leper—Ejis.p4cnNAo sAmlVt4icee em ve: Maplewood Addition Annexation 41 0 500 1000 Figure 3: Existing Structures Map _ Currene City Limits 7Annexation Area Ale t,chAdmemiratorNeighborhoods 8StrategicPlanning structure 1 : 6000 1 R°N 2004 ember IR/ De‘ '. 21 1 orrespohdena- 1/-'2702006 Fie oue-o6-o03 JDA Group LLC 95 S Tobin St•Suite 201 • Renton• WA 98055• Ph 425-891-1002• Fax 425-687 1405• alhadeffjack@hotmail.com Now. CITY OF November 21, 2006 �� AENTOiV NOV 222006 Mr. Randy Corman RECEIVED Renton City Council President LITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton City Hall mad .De/Ivcred 1055 South Grady Way Via libdaell6efiPal Renton, WA 98055-3232 Project: 6th Street Short Plat— New 8" Water Main in NW 6th Street, Permit #U050112 Subject: Waterline Reimbursement Request Dear Mr. Corman, I have been working with AHBL Engineers and the City of Renton on development of my proposed short plat located at the end of NW 6th Street. As part of the development, the City has requested that the existing 4-inch water main in NW 6th Street be up-sized to an 8-inch main. The new 8-inch water main will extend from Taylor Avenue to the east for approximately 675 feet within NW 6th Street. The new water main will benefit the proposed development as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Following is a request for the City to share in the cost of the new water main. The design of the new water main has recently been approved by the City and we are currently under construction. The construction costs are itemized as follows: 10x8 Cut in Tee (connection by City) 1 EA 10"Gate Valve 1 EA 10"Adapter 1 EA 10 Sleeves 2 EA 8" DIP 676 LF 8"Gate Valve 2 EA Bends/Blocking 3 EA Hydrant Assemblies 1 EA 6" Hydrant Ductile Iron 30 LF Remove Existing Fire Hydrant 1 EA Relocate Existing Service & Meter (in cul-de-sac) 1 EA Abandon Existing 4" Line in Place (Plug Ends Only) 1 LS Sawcut Asphalt (6" Max. Depth) 1,148 LF Asphalt Removal (6" Max. Depth) 162 CY Select Backfill 494 TON Asphalt Trench Patch (6" Max Depth) 226 SY Traffic Control 36 HR TOTAL $93,500 Igor In addition to the construction costs, JDA Group has incurred additional soft costs specifically related to the water main improvement. These additional costs include: JDA Group LLC 95 S Tobin St• Suite 201 • Renton• WA 98055• Ph 425-891-1002• Fax 425-687 140540 alhadeffjack@hotmail.com Nig Engineering Topographic Survey Construction Survey Permits Architectural oversight These additional soft costs are approximately $14,000. Combining the construction costs and soft costs, the resulting water main infrastructure total cost is: Total Water Main Cost: $107,500 Your assistance is requested to petition the City of Renton for some financial partnership in the subject water main infrastructure improvement project. We propose the following cost sharing arrangement: 7DA Group 1/2 Water Main Soft Costs $7,000 1/2 of Construction Bid $46,750 Total $53,750 City of Renton 1/2 Water Main Soft Costs $7,000 1/2 of Construction Bid $46,750 Total $53,750 It is our opinion that the above proposal and financial partnership is a mutual benefit to JDA Group, the City of Renton, and the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I trust the above stated proposal will meet with the City's approval. If you have any questions or need additional information related to this proposal, please call me at (425) 891-1002. Si cerely, / ack Alhadeff President, JDA Group c: Abdoul Gafour, City of Renton Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects Matt Weber, AHBL _y FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT Date //.027 ,20o6 November 27, 2006 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for payment on November 27, 2006, claim vouchers 254370- 254892 and 1 wire transfer, totaling $3,400,181.33 , and 637 direct deposits, payroll vouchers 66588-66746, and 1 wire transfer, totaling $2,008,809.35 . Don Persson, Chair 466:7 4A,_ Denis Law, Vice-Chair Toni Nelson, Mem r Cr ` urED BY 1 FINANCE COMMITTEE NCiL COMMITTEE REPORT Date I/-a 2'-a0°6 November 27, 2006 Curley Reconnection Fee (Referred October 16, 2006) The Finance Committee met to consider a request by Pam Curley to waive a water-related charge. After a complete review of the matter, the Committee believes that the City's current policy and procedures were followed appropriately. The Committee, therefore, recommends that no further action be taken on this matter at this time. Don Persson, Chair i&tte;ri ( t) Denis W. Law, Vice Chair Toni Nelson, Member cc: Gregg Zimmerman,P/B/PW Administrator Neil Watts,Development Services Director Jennifer Henning,Current Planning Manager ftlfckiaci Batley, FIS Mry)n. Ar77nvco BY C717 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE late l'A "D66 COMMITTEE REPORT November 27, 2006 2007 Water,Wastewater, and Surface Water Utility Rates (Referred November 20, 2006) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following utility rate changes effective January 1, 2007: 1. a 5% increase in Water Utility rates; 2. a 5% increase in Wastewater Utility rates, 3. a 3%increase in Surface Water Utility rates, 4. a monthly King County rate adjustment charge of fifty-six cents ($0.56) per residential account and fifty-six cents ($0.56) per 750 cubic feet (ccf) of water use for multi=family, commercial, and industrial accounts, and 5. collection of the King County Wastewater Treatment charge of $27.95 per residential customer equivalent per month. The Committee refers the subject of utility rates to the Committee of the Whole, to be reviewed in early 2007. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first and second reading and adoption on November 27,2006. 'andy Corman, Council President cc: Lys,Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Nenita Ching,PBPW Principal Fin&Adm Analyst Michael Bailey,Finance Administrator CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING FACTS, EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON SEWER AVAILABILITY FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE EAST RENTON PLATEAU POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA, AND ESTABLISHING A TERMINATION DATE FOR THE MORATORIUM. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has established a portion of the East Renton Plateau within its Potential Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has established this portion of the East Renton Plateau as being within its sanitary sewer service area; and WHEREAS, a citizen's group is currently pursuing potential annexation of the East Renton Plateau area; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton desires that all new subdivisions be developed to its land lorw use, zoning and public works standards; and WHEREAS, subdivisions developed in the county do not comply to all City standards; and WHEREAS, once properties are annexed to the City, new subdivisions not vested within the county would be required to meet all City standards; and WHEREAS, declaring a moratorium would prevent vesting of subdivisions before the property could be annexed to Renton; and WHEREAS, a moratorium was established by Resolution No. 3758 and extended by Resolutions 3783 and 3812, to provide adequate time for establishment of an annexation petition to be submitted to the City Council for its consideration; and *.r WHEREAS,a petition for an election annexation was submitted to the City; and 1 4 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS,King County Division of Records, Elections and Licensing has set an 4,81111 election date of February 8, 2007, for this proposal; and WHEREAS,a public hearing was held on November 27, 2006, to take testimony on extending the moratorium; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. There is hereby extended a moratorium on issuance of sewer availabilities for new subdivisions within the East Renton Plateau annexation area; such moratorium is shown on the attached map. The purpose of the moratorium is to preclude issuance of any new sanitary sewer availabilities and vesting of subdivisions under King County subdivision standards prior to a vote on the annexation question by the electorate within this potential annexation area. SECTION III. The moratorium shall be in place for a period not to exceed six additional months, unless otherwise extended for one or more additional periods by the City Council, but only if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal, to support such renewal. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. , e APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1222:11/06/06:ma Now Now 3 4/o,/ed //- 722( CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. .3?'S/`3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO PLACE PROPOSITION 1 BEFORE THE VOTERS, INCLUDING THE PREPARATION OF INFORMATION FOR THE VOTER'S PAMPHLET, FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON FEBRARY 6, 2007, REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1,475 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY WITHIN RENTON'S EAST RENTON PLATEAU POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA, ALSO KNOWN AS THE PRESERVE OUR PLATEAU ANNEXATION AREA (POPA). WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, the City of Renton passed Resolution No. 3829 supporting the annexation of contiguous unincorporated territory, referred to as the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation area, lying generally in the area bounded by the City of Renton corporate boundary and SE 128th Street west of 156th Avenue SE, and north of SE 138th Street and the Urban Growth Area boundary east of 154 'Place SE/156th Avenue SE; and WHEREAS, in that Resolution the City Council called for a special election to be held on February 6, 2007, pursuant to Chapter 29.13.020 RCW and Chapter 35A.14 RCW, to submit to the voters of the aforesaid territory the proposal for annexation; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City Council to authorize the actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters for the February 6, 2007, election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to take those actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters on the February 6, 2007, election. 1 RESOLUTION NO. SECTION III. The City Attorney has prepared the following ballot title for Proposition 1. The City Clerk is authorized to transmit this ballot title to King County Division of Records and Elections: PROPOSITION I ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON The Renton City Council received a petition to annex property to the City of Renton and passed Resolution No. 3829 calling for an election on the question. This measure would authorize annexation of that property to the City of Renton, generally referred to as the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation Area(POPA Annexation). Shall that area in unincorporated King County known as the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation Area as legally described in City of Renton Resolution No. 3829 be annexed to the City of Renton. C For Annexation Against Annexation SECTION IV. The Mayor is authorized and directed to take those actions necessary to place the information regarding Proposition 1 in the February 6, 2007, election's voter's pamphlet. SECTION V. Actions taken prior to adoption of this resolution that are consistent with it are hereby ratified and confirmed. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor 2 RESOLUTION NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1224:11/9/06:ma 3 ,dop//cp CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3841V A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING FINAL PLAT(WINDSTONE II; FILE NO. LUA-04-124). WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is proper and advisable and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools, schoolgrounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth (The property, consisting of approximately 3.6 acres, is located in the vicinity of NE 17th St. and Mt. Baker Avenue NE) 1 1. _ ,C' tii, .N 4111115 I I • R-14`.--, 02d It - Ti - ., .. . . 11) : SE 100th P1. iluillmigylui. P I I PaurRUIRIV ELIETIMEmpL0111ftri --,7" ' 1°20-2.--1 I 1 liat-4 atamnirt,;v4/00 *., F,--3 1 I 1 • II INIEN gz. ,46 ww-air p-As grAiot i g? I IIN - sat* Sp fi. . V maiimissmi z i am j� ,�,� L Oa SI �, iN.. �`' �(j� 4$11 i-srul SE 104th St. 1 SE 104t ?) .. A �� PO% 16,./ • r � -� 1111 2 Ihami w Li& if 11'' SW * 11110• eggse * if* . ' gs 4 5'ir- li _11144 vilv i A . . P.:ffirr .41 MI ty / I�lir 7 , . 'MTN: l if. _ isie I 7 8 r In c., • A s „1;y1 ii ifl - `�„t+�Ir mefrr ii R 1811 r SE 112th P1. 't -- wA___C i SE 113th E6 - 10T23NRSEE1/2 Anil ZONING ---- �° D 6 ION Z wan= '2104103 3 T23N R5E E 1/2 5303 RESOLUTION NO. is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department dated November 27, 2006. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1226:11/17/06:ma 2 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A WINDSTONE II LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT W, KING COUNTY, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER L00L0089, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20020702900007, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 599-8 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAPS AND DATA IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Renton has heretofore adopted and filed a "Comprehensive Plan" and the City Council of Renton has implemented and amended said "Comprehensive Plan" from time to time, together with the adoption of various codes, reports and records; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heretofore recommended to the City Council, from time to time, certain amendments to the City's"Comprehensive Plan"; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton, pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Now,; Act, has been required to review its"Comprehensive Plan"; and WHEREAS, the City has held a public hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made certain findings and recommendations to the City Council, including implementing policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly determined after due consideration 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 for the "Comprehensive Plan" are in the best interest for the public benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: "err 1 r• ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. 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: Capital Facilities, Community Design, Land Use and Land Use Map, and Transportation as shown on Attachments A, B, C,D and E and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION H. The Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes on said City's"Comprehensive Plan" and the maps in conjunction therewith to evidence the aforementioned five amendments. SECTION III. 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 IV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor -4001 2 ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.13 04:11/20/06:ma 3 ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A CAPITAL FACILTIES ELEMENT "%"'` 2005 to 2010 GOAL Develop and implement the capital facilities plan for the City of Renton. Nome III-I ATTACHMENT A TABLE OF CONTENTS CAPITAL USE FACILITIES Growth Management Act III-4 Growth Projections III-5 Capital Facilities Plan Policies III-7 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan III-8 Water Capital Facilities Plan III-16 Wastewater Capital Facilities Plan III-21 Surface Water Utility Capital Facilities Plan III-25 Park,Recreation and Open Space III-29 Public Safety Capital Facilities Plan II1-41 Fire Capital Facilities Plan III-42 Economic Development/Administration III-46 III-2 ATTACHMENT A Purpose The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan is: to identify the new or expanded public facilities that will be needed to accommodate--at an established level of service--the growth projected to occur within the City of Renton in the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan; and • to identify the sources of public financing for these public facilities. Methods and Process The Capital Facilities Plan relies heavily on the analyses and policies presented in the other seven elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as in the Fire Department Master Plan, Comprehensive Park,Recreation and Open Space Plan, Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, Issaquah ,Kent and Renton School District's Capital Improvement Plans, and City of Renton Annual Capital Improvements Plan_. For detailed information and explanations concerning growth projections, land use determinations,existing facilities, level of service,etc., the reader must consult these documents. The Capital Facilities Plan incorporates by reference the information and analyses presented in these other documents and the annual updates to these plans concerning existing facilities and level of service standards. Based on these other documents,the Capital Facilities Plan establishes policies for determining which public facilities should be built and how they should be paid for, and presents a six-year plan for the use of public funds toward building and funding the needed capital facilities. The process for arriving at the six-year plan involved identifying existing facilities and level of service standards and then applying the projected growth in residential population and employment to identify the needed capital facilities. The timing of the facilities was established through a combination of the requirements of the city's concurrency policy and the length of time it takes to implement the needed facility. Type and Providers of Capital Facilities For the purposes of complying with the requirements of the GMA,the Capital Facilities Plan proposes a six-year plan for the following capital facilities and providers: 'fir' transportation City of Renton domestic water City of Renton sanitary sewer City of Renton surface water City of Renton parks facilities City of Renton fire City of Renton police City of Renton economic development City of Renton fir" III-3 ATTACHMENT A • GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS Passed by the legislature in 1990,the Growth Management Act establishes planning goals as well as specific content requirements to guide local jurisdictions in the development and adoption of comprehensive plans. One of the thirteen planning goals stated in the Act is to: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. (RCW 36.70A.020(12)) To this end, the Act requires that each comprehensive plan contains: A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a)An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b)a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c)the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d)at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and(e)a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element,and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent.(RCW 36.70A.070(3)) With respect to transportation facilities,the Act is more specific,requiring that: ...transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development and defining"concurrent with development"to mean "that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years." (RCW 36.70A.070(6)) The Act also requires that: ...cities shall perform their activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with their comprehensive plans. (RCW 36.70A.120) Administrative Regulations (WAC 365-195) In support of the GMA legislation,state administrative regulations require that the Capital Facilities Plan consist of at least the following features(WAC 365-195-315(1)): 1. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. 2. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. 3. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. 4. At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. 5. A reassessment of the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs. In the administrative regulations, the state recommends that in addition to transportation, concurrency should be sought for domestic water and sanitary sewer systems. (WAC 365-195-060(3)) Additionally,the regulations state that the planning for all elements, including the Capital Facilities Plan, should be undertaken with the goal of economic development in mind even though the Act does not mandate an economic development element for the plan. (WAC 365-195-060(2)) III-4 ATTACHMENT A Nome GROWTH PROJECTIONS The Puget Sound Regional Council population and employment forecast growth for the City over the twenty-one-year interval from 2001 to 2022 is an increase of 9,723 households, and 33,600 jobs. Growth targets adopted by the Growth Management Planning Council anticipate 6,198 households and 27,597 jobs. Both forecast growth and targets are well within the City's estimated land capacity of 11,261 units and 32,240 jobs established through the Buildable Lands requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA). Renton is planning for its regional share of forecast growth over the next 20 years at the high end of the range, and the adopted target at the low end of the range. In the first 9 years of growth management actual growth in Renton exceeded targets,but was within the range predicted by the forecast growth assumptions. With external factors, including the regional economy, state/federal transportation funding and the GMA regulatory environment remaining constant or improving, Renton's growth is anticipated to continue over the next 6 year planning cycle. The following chart summarizes Renton's forecast growth,targets and land use capacity. Incorporated Adjusted Target/Capacity Capital Facilities Annualized Renton Reflecting Plan Planning Estimate 2001-2022 Growth/Annexation/Land Incorporated (21yrs) Use Changes in 2001 and Renton 2002 2005-2010 Forecast Growth 9,723 units None 2,778 units 463 units 33,600 jobs 9,600 jobs 1,600 jobs 22,266 (21 yrs) population* Growth Targets 6,198 units 4,523 units 1,428 units 238 units 27,597 jobs 26,736 jobs 8,442 jobs 1,407 jobs 14,194 (19 yrs adjusted population* for remaining target) Capacity 11,261 units 9,634 units NA NA established by 32,240 jobs* 30,699 jobs Buildable Lands 25,788 population* *Additional zoned capacity established for the Urban Center-North through the Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendments in 2003 of 10,600,000 square feet of employment uses, 360 hotel rooms, and 3,225 units is not yet incorporated into the Buildable Lands data base. However,transportation infrastructure planning for the Urban Center-North is included in the next 6-year planning cycle for the Capital Facilities Element and will be reflected in the Transportation section of this Element. Population increase estimates are based on a household size of 2.29. For the purpose of developing a six-year capital facilities plan for the period from 2005 through 2010,an estimate was de as to the amount of the remaining 21-year growth to be realized during the six-year Capital Facilities Element tanning cycle. After reviewing the projections and the underlying assumptions, it was determined that for planning purposes,the most prudent course was to assume a uniform allocation of the forecast growth and targets over the 21- year period,rather than trying to predict year by year economic cycles. II1-5 ATTACHMENT A Renton's growth over the first years of growth management is occurring more rapidly than originally forecast. The • estimate for 2001 was 48,456 persons however the actual population by April 1,2001 was 51,140,exceeding forecast growth by 2,684 persons housed in 1,177 housing units over a 6 year period(196 units per year).By April 1,2004,the City population was 55,360,representing an increase of another 4,220 residents and an estimated 1, 850 units. The number of units realized between 2002 and 2004 exceeds the forecast projection of 1,389 units by 461 units(153 units per year). Some of this development can be explained by new housing developed in areas annexing to the City. However,the increase exceeds the proportional share of housing target and forecast growth assigned to this annexation area and assumed by the City upon annexation. For the purposes of the next phase of the planning cycle,the 2005 to 2010 six-year Capital Facilities Plan,Renton will continue plan for the next six-year increment of forecast growth assuming an increase of 2,778 units and 9,600 jobs. Forecast growth represents the upper end of expected growth,while the target of 1,356 units and 8,022 jobs represented the minimum amount of growth expected for this period. The City's population in the year 2010 is forecast as 61,694 persons. To be sure, growth will not occur precisely as projected over the next six-year or the 21-year period. Recognizing this fact, the Capital Facilities Plan should be updated at least biennially. In this way local governments have the opportunity to re-evaluate their forecasts in light of the actual growth experienced,revise their forecasts for the next six years if necessary,and adjust the number and timing of capital facilities that would be needed during the ensuing six-year period. The City performed such a review of the Capital Facilities Plan in 2004 and determined that there was not a need to adjust the growth forecast or the number and timing of capital facilities. This conclusion was based on a finding that although actual growth was higher than forecast,the level of service standards were being maintained. Subsequent reviews may result in revisions to the growth projections and the number and timing of capital facilities if actual growth continues to exceed the forecast growth As stated in Policy CFP-1,this Capital Facilities Plan is anticipated to be updated regularly as part of the city's budget process,thereby ensuring that the Plan reflects the most current actual statistics related to growth in Renton,and that capital facilities are slated for implementation in accordance with both the level of service standards and the city's concurrency policy. It is anticipated that the City will fully implement this policy(CFP-1) in the annual budget process. Nod III-6 ATTACHMENT A CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN POLICIES 'olicv CFP-1. The Capital Facilities Plan should be updated on a regular basis as part of the city's budget process,and 4.'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 I upon the request of each school district within the City limitstlie-distfiet,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. rirolicy CFP-7 Adopt by reference the Kent School District#415 Capital Facilities Plan 2006-2007- 2011-2012 and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan Policy CFT-8 Adopt by reference the Issaquah School District#411 Capital Facilities Plan 2006-2012 and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan (See the Public Facilities and Annexation Sections of the Land Use Element, the Parks, Recreation Trails and Open Space Element, the Utilities Element, and the Transportation Elements for policies related to this Capital Facilities Plan.) °®t.r III-7 ATTACHMENT A TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2005-2010 Inventory of Existing Facilities Figures 7-1, 7-2,and 7-3 on the following pages indicate the degree to which Renton's transportation system is integrally linked to the regional transportation system.The first exhibit is of the existing street and highway system; the second depicts traffic flows on that system in 2002; and,the third depicts daily traffic volumes forecasted for 2022. In Renton perhaps more than in any other jurisdiction in the Puget Sound area,actions relating to the transportation system have local and regional implications. Level of Service Background In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion,the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people,not just vehicles.The LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service(LOS)in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle(SOV)travel; and • The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. III-8 ATTACHMENT A Fig. 7-1 Existing Street/Highway System Existing Street/Highway System (2003) ., �., S' , Legend_ LIIII1! N R )Cc ry>am�< tizio- < —') Transportation Ac4 Renton N. Planire .;MIZ Planning Area �� liapigini � � Ftcastle �- �,�. I�► 111IN � rit. lb Not To Sok e. ii 111A ;.� 445Eli i : 7 I- uni: giriliallail r-s'4,1 gI � ■MJANqg .1111111►" P +4%` ` ' it lirliErl 444 .A�� .,�,_.,�t_ , '1\1014./E ,est, a. fall"A �ig� .yip. it logailize....A ��lids.'�� 1 or artAMPighlafil iii IN �\',,� 1r"��` 'a. i11111 Altitil moo. a �F{{F�� 944 �., ,-,,.7 !w.'�L.�� ¶ tRenthnitsifirr 'yitir�,`' 7,m ue�jt ;�4 we) lE isiei is b. _inn rim 111"711767 " igkW--ti----e°-'.125±f-:-.41011 ii, te„...,....a.ffill Nth --•••11111,111411111411 - rill iii' WA ��1a l .t .,.- ICirjrAwar as4 aspff.t 4 'lime , 77 •'l: 4 ",, iisi 1 IIIIr�i7/ Y (fi 1 1! a . +e+ , ili 44 0171 _cc of j i ' i "Air A Idek — 0 c rill LI rtro.' Ilirl III KZ 92Pd 31 4i 1 Le t rail egpoim-- - - t 4 q gi i-, . ,..-i:.:: . I Imo Ad- ,1 rfirlis � III-9 ATTACHMENT A + Figure 7-2 Traffic Flow Map 0 d 4T:1 O. 0 9 '4*04 idlar ciao m !(mak, - 10 VVVV » YICINlit �i•l 2 sT .-0,,,:,-,,, , „::, ; . . . d ,..a,. -. 0 0" 0 0- NMO "W'.. ..4%1/4.. ‘ 0 illiAlt.S.;1/411=,..4''' t's 0 A w 0 0 O�j t.) Tr l� � ��, - �� CITY OF RENTON m 1�8�'� s 2002 0 �� , TRAFFIC FLOW MAP ii, ' 6, 0 ' OEPARTWEKT OF PwININOJBU1.DITO/P000C WORKS J.j=_... 0 ..._isit "�'7¢ OOERT ATgNSstY7 OHStJ1 6" SCALE. 1 - 100.000 vEI.LTES :� ^ (i ti C , •O TNCRONAL a yENKIES j'i7 j' 8C1REC710NAL MENACE OMT 7WFFIIC 1NOTE. AT INTERSTATE 405 A STATE ROUTE 167 MOW Of 1-105)ARES OWN AT we I-405 (-405 SCALE. l >.0»w. 0 It Z© ,, ,' 1... ill 6 PST If 0: `""e , 67,c,..0 NWT I � � 0 a : mTn E w -. -.) I..r iEiEHii ' CITYOF RENTON .- r=1111111311= Nage°III-10 ATTACHMENT A Fig. 7-3 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes ,4400, �� r ; ; 2 dam' vet III fi t r _ a� y F ftl lii . r� %jl% ► • castle ','.. 101 ll VA° Iai taitA , 11 A �'�Ili11h 4_„ r�, =tit le. 1.,- IL 1/n1�11111 ��.. �` . f �. . .., 405 � nor/ - �:1�4. r �ibt: �\ 1111 i W i aoo CC11111i ) ir!1. 1 tt.-4-rcp„tr.mil me -im � re.,,ittim.55 _ Ittiviro sk., oar.. ,-... . lm-aw N ,...,_. , ` 1� '1 116 Ilki 1 ai ,N,ti ii imwg., ,l‘ 11 •7rte= I�'-`j6. _\ � v ��. 90D 4. Jilin flimIrt.8401 )4V; - it Renton - A 0.. � �• t�.4�-anil _1, _��.. I SII i \� ii �, illi �' 7,._ ,,_�,. r moi"`—ate_," .:... „.„/ ` 4.4.40: v.tillpig,44.‘ \ 4w*A F &7_, os .51, _ , ., ,,,,, _.„ " ' .17,Z). ilk IrmpolitaiLdi ... ..,.... r...,,,I , _ ..., 1 Illir - rJ {I 202 Daily Traffic Volumesitiktilirviriermwmft .0as+ Legedr �� Average�: ! :' 'Y l = .+� m Daily TrafficEN Transportation j •} 1 �I City Limit r i Plan 1 � Renton � ;`7 r,000 I � � Planning Area �:. � ill-11 ATTACHMENT A The LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto,transit,HOV,non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally linked, locally oriented,dynamic transportation system; • Meet requirements of the Growth Management Act; • Meet the requirements of the Countywide Planning Policies Level of Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide flexibility for Renton to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS standards by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto,HOV,and transit measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures assist in meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. The Level of Service Standard Methodology The following table demonstrates how the LOS policy is applied. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been calculated for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30-minute travel distance for SOV,HOV and Transit as follows: Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit 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) The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. Therefore, SOV improvements will need to be implemented to raise the SOV equivalent or a combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the LOS standard. Renton's Transportation Improvement Plan Arterial,HOV and Transit Sub-Elements have been tested against the above LOS standard to assure that the Plan meets the year 2022 standard. City-wide Level of Service Index(Year2002): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* *Rounded NOTE: The 1990 LOS Index of 49 (which was the basis for the 2010 LOS standard) presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted February 20, 1995 was based on raw travel distance data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton(1990-2010)transportation model,which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. A LOS index of 42 has been determined for the year 2002 by the new calibrated(2002-2022) transportation model that reflects 2002 and 2022 land use data. The 2002 LOS index of 42 is shown above, and is the basis for the 2022 LOS standard. III-12 ATTACHMENT A 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. To check the progress toward the 2022 goal, each year the city will assess the level of service as a part of its annual Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP). This assessment will further ensure that level of service is maintained for the current period as well as for 2022. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan,2005-2010 The transportation 6-year facilities plan is based on achieving the desired level of service by the year 2022 through an annual program of consistent and necessary improvements and strategies. Additionally,the plan includes projects such as bridge inspections, street overlay programs,traffic signal maintenance,and safety improvements that are needed as part of the City's annual work program. Projects that promote economic development also are included, as encouraged by the GMA. See Table 7-1 on the following page for the latest adopted 6-year plan. The first step in developing the 6-year funding plan was to establish a 20-year plan that included arterial,HOV and transit components. This effort resulted in a planning level cost estimate of$134 million. The cost for arterials and HOV are total costs(or Renton's share of the cost of joint projects with WSDOT and local jurisdictions). The transit costs include only the local match for local feeder system improvements,park and ride lots, signal priority and transit amenities. aving established a 20-year funding level of$134 million,an annual funding level of$6.7 million was established. ith this funding level, it is reasonably certain that the desired level of service will be maintained over the intervening years as long as the facilities funded each year are consistent with the 20-year plan and transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously emphasized. The funding source projections in Table 7-2 are based upon the assumption that: gas tax revenue would continue at no less than$0.35 million per year; that grant funding would be maintained at $3.90 million per year; .business license fees would continue at$1.88 million per year based on the current 85%of the annual revenue generated from this fee that is dedicated to fund transportation improvements; and that$0.57 million per year from mitigation fees would be maintained. Based on forecasts of total new vehicle trips from development,a mitigation fee of$75 per trip has been established. Developers are required to implement site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent facility impacts are mitigated,as well as paying their required fees. III-13 ATTACHMENT A Table 7-1 2005-2010 Six-Year TIP Total Project Costs 144.01 Total Project Costs Previous -1 Six-Year Total TIP Project Title Costs 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Period Total Coat 1 Street Overlay Program 1,050002 405.000 405,000 405.000 405,000 405,000 405,000 2430,000 3,480,002 2 SR 167/SW 27th St/Strander By 355,174 10,000 10,000_ 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 55,000 410.174 3 Strander BvtSW 27th St Connect, 1.705.400 800,000 9,394,540 28.000,000 26.500.000 64,694,540 66,400.000 4 SR 169 NOV-140th to SR900 2,000,392 10,000 55.100 3,680,000 2,350,000 6,095,100 8095.492 $ Renton Urban Shuttle(RUSH) 20,169 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000, 5,000 5,000 30,000 50,169 s Transit Program 32,584 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 122,400 154,984 7 Rainier Av Corridor Study/improv. 267,710 20.000 20,000 20,000 261,000 2,964.000 3,185,000 6,450,000 6,717,710 a NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 323,892 315,300 807,500 5,017,000 2100,000 2.100,000 10.339,800 10,663.692 a Walkway Program 317,533 236,600 250,000 250000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1.486,600 1,804,133 19 S Lake Wash.Roadway improv. 1,500,000 I 1,850,000 14,300,000 23,800,000 39.950,000 41.450,000 it SR 169 Corridor Study 50000 50,000 50,000 12 South Renton Project 156,800 18,200 240,000 258,200 415,000 13 1-405Improwmente In Renton 42,186 30,000 20000 10,000 60,000 102,186 14 Project Development/Predesign 271,363 175.000 175,000 200.000 200,000 200.000 200,000 1,150,000 1.421,363 is NE 4th StlHoqufam Av NE 55,100 344,900 344,900 400,000 14 Rainier Av-SW 7th to 4th PI 80.000 585,000 2,150,000 855,000 3,590,000 3,670,000 17 Benson Rd•S 26th to Main 20.000 459,400 2,500 461,900 481,900 ie Arterial Circulation Program 195,308 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 250,000 250,000 1,3________00,000 1,495 308 le Bridge Inspection&Repair 120,411 40,000 140,000 40,000 615,000 40,000 30,000 905,000 1,025,411 20 Loop Replacement Program 57,441 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 177.441 21 Sign Replacement Program 13,427 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 45,000 58.427 22 Pole Program 47,974 25.000 48,400 25,000 25,000 25,000 25.000 173,400 221,374 23 Sound Transit HOV Direct Access 46,523 10,000 5,000 15,000, 61,523 24 Traffic Safety Program 233,791 80,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40.000 40,000 280,000 513.791 25 Traffic Efficiency Program 250,505 251,900 114,400 75,000 30,000 30,000 30 000 531 300 781 805 26 CBD Bike 8,Ped.Connections 25,212 50,000 50,000, 10,000 590,000 410,000 5,000 1,115,000_ 1,140,212 27 Arterial Rehab.Prog. 537.800 195,000 240,000 205,000 340,000 230,000 180,000 1,390,000 1,927,800 is Duvall Ave NE 667,781 1,258,700 1,692,000 2,950,700 3,618,481 29 Sunset/DuwtlIntersection 115,000 381,000 _ 381,000 496,000 39 RR Crossing Safety Prog. 5,198, 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 35,198 31 TDM Program 100,870 64,200 64,200 64,200 64,200, 64,200 64 200 385 200 485,870 32 'Trans Concurrency 1,784 40.000' 10,000' 40,000 10,000 10,0001 30,000 140140 000 141,784 33 Missing Links Program 36.350 30.000' 30.000 30,000' 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 216.350 34 GIS Needs Assessment 44,874 35,000 35.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 150,000 194,874 35 Grady Wy Corridor Study 5.000 35,000 120,000 80,000' 230,000' 1.810,0001 1,020,000 3,295.000 3.300.000 36 Bicycle Route Ow.Program 24,798 20,000 18,000' 18,000 110,000 80,000 80,000 326.000 350,798 3T Lake Wash.Bvfhrk to Coulon Pk 329,900 79,500 149,100 228.600568,500 3s Interagency Signal Coord. 26.572 12,000 12,000 38,572 39 Environmental Monitoring 223,711 85,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 25.000 25,000 285,000 508,711 40 Trans-Valley&Soos Creek Corr. 7,300 5,000 5,000 12.300 41 WSDOT Coordination Program 18,857 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 60,000_ 78,857 42 1%for the Arts 20,000 50,000 30,000 30,000 50,000 30,000 30.000 220,000 240,000 43 Arterial NOV Program 125,354 10,000 10,000 20,000 145,354 44 Park-Sunset Corrldor 7,889 25,000 50,000 390,000 1,891,000 1,059,000 3,215,000 3,222,889 45 Lind Av-SW 16th-SW 43rd 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,914,000 626,000 2,550,000 2,555,000 46 Benson Rd S IS 31st Sl 138,500 61,500 61,500 200,000 47 Mogan Av Concrete Panel Repair 460,000 460,000 460,000 44 CardMillSignal 5,000 10,000' 20,000 340,000 400,000 10,000 785,000 785.000 49 Transit Priority Signal System 1,280,315 30,000 30,000 1,310,315 90 Transit Center Video 26,391 10,000 10,000 36,391 51 Houser Wy S•Main to Burnett 810,000 _ 810,000 810,000 52 Trans Valley(TS 60,000 5,000 5.000 10,000 80,000 53 Lake Wash.By Slip Plane 629,400 10.600 10,600 640,000 34 Monster Road Bridge 500,000 12,000 12,000 512,000 99 SW 7th StILInd Ave SW 273,577 26,423 _ _ 26,423 300,000 m Duvall Ave NE-King County 547,858 1,311,342 2,810.800 4,122,142 4,670,000, Total Sgursee14938 836 7466485 9 710704 3,364 x 28 964540 55 6�1 100 68.367 100 164,214 305 179,153,141 III-14 s a a , 2 4 t1 z --i a CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2005 -2010 SIX-YEAR TIP SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES Period ITEM Period Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 - ri) C SIX-YEAR PROJECT COSTS: 2 c Pro'ect Develo•ment 3 550 900 683,400 674 100 589,600 514 600 539,600 549,600 El (^ Precon En./Admin 8 667 940 1 753 900 297 400 616 100 5 360,540 485,000 155000 ' N R-O-W includes Admin 10 595 242 1 451,242 3 100,000 2 044 000 4,000,000 0 o H Construction Contract Fee 127,099 323 3,404 723 7,663 000 1 799 000 17 877 600 47 733 500 48 621,500 c tea" Construction Eng/Admin 13,235,800 364,100 867,200 190,100 1 989,400 4,896,500 4,928,500 = C? - Other 1,065,100 329,100 209,000 169,500 122,500 122,500 112,500 p, i� `'� Sub-TOTAL SIX-YEAR COST 164,214,305 7,986,465 9,710,700 3,364,300 28,964,640 55,821,100 58,367,100 A N cro 3„ 0 y SOURCE OF FUNDS: >r 1/2 Cent Gas Tax 2,100,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Business License Fee 9,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 *Eliminated by 1-776. - , Grants In-Hand 6,529,110 1,911,329 2,896,133 561,115 392,947 767,586 Mitigation In-Hand 6,135,043 1,995,291 2,004,567 803,985 915,400 342,900 72,900 L.I.D.'s Formed Other In-Hand 8,136,645 2,129,845 2,860,000 49,200 2,999,200 49,200 49,200, Sub-TOTAL SIX-YEAR FUNDED 32,500,798 7,986,465 9,710,700 3,364,300 6,257,547 3,109,686 2,072,100 Grants Proposed 8,726,000 3,026,000 1,700,000 4,000,000 Miti•ation Pro•osed 60,000 60,000 L.I.D:s Pro•osed Other Pro•osed 8,054,000 1 765 000 3,144,000 3145,000 Undetermined 114,873,507 17,856,093 47,867,414 49,150,000 TOTAL SOURCES-FUN•ED&UNFUNDED 164,214,305 7,986,465 9,710,700 3,364,300 28,964,640 55,821,100 58,367,100 ATTACHMENT A WATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2005-2010 Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's water system provides service to an area of approximately 16 square miles and more than 14,700 customers located in 12 hydraulically-distinct pressure zones. An inventory of the existing capital facilities in the water system is listed in Figure 8-1 and consists of 8 wells and one spring for water supply, eleven booster pump stations,eight reservoirs, water treatment facilities at each source(chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control)and approximately 283 miles of water main in service. In addition,the City maintains one standby well and seven metered connections with the City of Seattle(Cedar River and Bow Lake supply pipelines)for emergency back-up supply. Renton supplies water on a wholesale basis to Lakeridge Bryn-Mawr Water District. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Water Utility is defined by the ability to provide an adequate amount of high quality water to all parts of the distribution system at adequate pressure during peak demand or fire. This ability is determined by the physical condition of the system and the capacity of supply,storage,treatment,pumping and distribution systems. Level of service standards for the water system vary according to the component of the overall system and are determined by the requirements established by local, state, and federal regulations. Water supply is regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology(water rights), and the Washington State Department of Health(quantity guidelines),water quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(Safe Drinking Water Act)and the Washington State Department of Health(primacy over Safe Drinking Water Act), system design and construction requirements are regulated by the Washington State Department of Health. The Water Utility maintains a hydraulic model of the water system. The model incorporates the pipe size and location, booster pumps,and storage to determine the flow and pressure available in each segment of the distribution system. The Utility can evaluate the impact of a specific development on the system using the model. The Water Utility reviews each development in terms of flow,pressure and water supply required. The Water Utility's goal is to provide an adequate supply of potable water under the "worst case" scenario. This NIS scenario considers the following conditions: failure of the largest source of supply, failure of the largest mechanical component,power failure to a single power grid,and/or a reservoir out of service. Under this scenario,the Water Utility strives to meet the following primary requirements: Pressure: Maintain a minimum of 30 pounds per square inch(psi)at the meter during normal demand conditions and a minimum of 20 psi during an emergency. Maximum allowable pressure at the meter during normal demand is 130 psi and a maximum of 150 psi during an emergency Velocity: Under normal demand conditions,the velocity in a transmission main is less than 4 feet per second (fps)and less than 8 fps during an emergency. Supply: The water supply must meet the maximum day demand and replenish storage within 72 hours with the largest source of supply out of service. Storage: Storage volume must be maintained to provide for peak demand and adequate volume for an emergency(fire). Transmission and Distribution: The Water Utility uses design criteria approved by the Washington State Department of Health. Treatment and Monitoring: The Water Utility treats all sources with chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control. Water quality monitoring is conducted as required by the State Department of Health under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The City implements a cross connection control program to prevent cross connections with non potable sources and a wellhead protection program. Fire Flow: Fire flow required by a development is as established in the fire code and can vary from 1000 gallons per minute to 5500 gallons per minute. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2005-2010 III-16 ATTACHMENT A Based on the projected growth in population and employment by the year 2010,the existing supply of water will meet the level of service standard. As Table 8-1 indicates,with the addition of Wells 11, 12 and 17, the net capacity of the system is 27.07 million gallons per day,which is adequate to meet the City's anticipated growth and maximum day :,demand for water to at least 2020. Meeting the current fire flow level of service standards will require improvements to the existing water system if the projected commercial and industrial growth occurs. In general, fire flow is adequate to all single family and multi-family areas with the possible exception of portions of downtown, depending on the extent of new multi-family development and the type of construction. Certain areas slated for commercial and industrial growth will need upgrading of the system. Other improvements to the water system will be needed during the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan because of regulatory requirements relating to water quality and efforts to maintain the existing system at the desired level of service. The list of growth-related facilities needed to meet all of the level of service standards and regulatory requirements are in Table 8-2. The funds for the needed facilities are projected to come from a number of sources, including: water utility rates, connection fees,developer extension agreements, low interest loans from state or federal programs,and grants from state and federal agencies. The projected total revenue from all sources for each of the six years in also shown in Table 8-2. Now III-17 ATTACHMENT A Table 8-1 On-Line Supply Sources—Existing Water Supply Capacity Name Pumping Rate(gpm) Pumping Rate (mgd) Springbrook 600 0.86 Well RW-1 2,200 3.17 Well RW-2 2,200 3.17 Well RW-3 2,200 3.17 Well RW-5A 1,400 2.02 Well PW-8 3,500 5.04 Well PW-9 1,200 1.73 Well PW-11 2,500 3.60 Well PW-12 1,500 2.16 Well PW-17 1,500 2.16 TOTAL 18,800 GPM 27.07 MGD GPM: gallon per minute MGD: million gallon per day Total annual water rights are 14,809 acre-feet per year Ned Nord III-18 ATTACHMENT A Table 8-2 Water Capital Facilities __,, Summary of Water Utilities Capital Improvement Projects 2005-2010 (Court per Year x 1,000L 2005-2010 Project ID Description 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL Supply and Storage Improvements S-1 Water lnterties with A4acent Water Districts - 200 200 S-2 65 Zone 2 MG Reservoir 400 000, 500 2,900 S-3 196 Zone Reservoir and Pump Station 200 500 2,000 , 1,000 3,700 8.4 196 ZonePower 400 400 800 S-5 Pipe OvefsElaMimbuisements Subtotal-Supply and Water Quality knprovements 40 40 40 40 40 100 300 440 2,440 1,340 540 2,040 1,100 7,900 Water Quality Improvements WQ-1 Maplewood Water Quafit and Treatment Facility 2,000 WQ•2 Wel 5A Water Quality t Treatment Facity 1 400 500' 500 1,400 Subtotal-Water Quality Improvements 2,000 400 500 500 0 0 3,400 Water Main Rehabilitation WM-1 Water Man Replacement 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,500 6,500 WM-2 Duval Avenue NE Water Main Replacement 100 100 WM 3 Strander Boulevard SW Water Main Extension 500 500 Subtotal-Water Main Rehabilitation 1,100 1,000 1,000 1!000 1,500 1,500 7,100 Major Maintenance M-1 Reservoirs Recoatirg,Cathodic Protection and Exterior Painting 100 100 50 50 50 50 400 M-2 Fmergency Response Water Projects 50 50 100 100 100 100 500 M3 Water System Security 40 40 40 40 40 40 240 M-t Rehabiltation of Wells 1,2,and 3 ' 200 200 M-5 Automatic Meter Reading Conversion 200 500 200 200 800 ibtaare. Subtotal-Major Maintenance Projects 190 190 390 890 390 390 2,140 Water Utility Regulatory Compliance Programs RC-1 1 Regulatory Compliance Programs T 1201 801 901 go 1 931 195 1 665 Subtotal•Regulatory Compliance Programs 120 80 90 90 90 195 665 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 3,850 4,110 3,320 3,020 4,020 3,185 21,205 Sources of Funds 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Operating Revenues/Bonds 1,131,000 1,112,000 855,000 865,000 855,000 847,000 System Development Charges 470,000 470,000 470,000 470,000 470,000 470,000 New Revenues Bonds 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 Public Works Trust Fund Loan 2,575,000, Special Assessment Districts- 15,000 15000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Total 4,191,000 5,597,000 1,340,000 5,350,000 1,340,000 5,832,000 Nosy III-19 11) ) . .„) ,, .„„..„, ' ''. , • .....„ ....:1•:,-.:440',:4-,i-i M:000#1M Moo0M44.40 . •,.,._,,,,,,,,,, .,,t4 _ ._,..„-•• •-,‘,,...,'-• t , A,--,---4„;;" ,..4,.,..A4) : ,%:,.:- ;-..:.! • , .... i..4,I.,--„, _• ,„ f.,k••••,, ;„•,.--,.%•.:•!..",-*,;-ii • -. ) ! , ,.. ; 1: ,.-. ••-, _$ *,.,,.. ...•.... :, :11..„...4.....,'". , - I.„A-•,-;liv:,,,I ..':Ii.!..;7'1 .•$. :. -..., - ,I'-' i•, ' .% 'A:0 ,..1 l''''''...1..'t;...x.---„ %,,,,,,j-,.....7,• , , . •'';""r,1 -- ,I,Ircii-i.,r3„... .,%...., -:,,,, 1i. F -I fl, „,.,...1.?:.-„t*„......., '1_,..,-,. .,•-:_-.:.... .1:4'0.,A,.... `,,•=!/.•t“...ir' .k.,....•,. .",-,42.2. i,.., I I I I 1 li I . i., .r,. :, . " t' .,...tr i...--14, 1.,..•!.---T. 0)...../ ,,.:,,,.•••'-1.:', .-. (.',..4''Ae,• "s.'... .r".i.:T.7" ' „,- -: . • , .:LI .. -. ' imp -..,-- ,.-,. •-,,,r, •„r. , .•,....,.. , :„.•.:1:J....1,r ..., 6. > . ..,•,•• . ,_,. •-,. .. , • ;. .,, ,,......v... - • .. ,,..,......::\,.,,...-.,,,..-74 :-; f,,:v ,,-.,,...,.--.-„,. .,-: ,,,,..t..,,,,4 • .„..„:!,.. •,,,,,,.,,, -.! t A r, g 0 -j 'r",7'';''',''''' ::--- • - "', ''''''-'. '-. :''' ;:' ]- ., C‘i ',':'; ''''' .. ';?... '..i .,..,'7..• ;.•,..;;;-. !..i" I I . '• -..• . • 4.4 1,„ I' ••,,...,, .', ''',.. !-::,iq • f -..,-. 7.-,,i,-:, - .• •-1 of.",,,,••••';) , , . . . • ' . ' -j,,,,,Y!,.'is:4',.:4,ii,]•17 • .. . . . ' "' ' •' ', ' '' ' • _ . r .1 • ,/.. 3'j''i'";..... .I 6.4. ..,....• I . ' r ' •• '4 '''1 1'.1.:. ,) '..''... .. ‘..' :' ' .'•' '.'' '-' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,11 ,1 ,1 . . .., ..., . ... • ,t4,...„,,,,. .4..,..„ ... „.......1 ..• •.:. . . , -.-,, . ,. IIIIIIII •.• • . ,,, ,,., _ , • .., . , . .., , , +r----, , il:T:".; 1' ' l',... . .1 . 4. .. .. . . . .. o cv ' ".. 1 as . .- -- ... . . •'' ' ' ;,:•...• • 1::...v...ti . . ...,,,,-- .... ...:..•. .... .. .. .. -----ciz:-.4„,..-,A;t:::. , - ,-... .': ' !. . - t_ :r.. ' . ..... .,77.7.,;,....-....';'...,..-,.,,,.:.;',..;;:'.,..,`.,,,:., .-.:.-,..! ...; .,. -. .- • . . . . .,..„. ...ts.z.;„:„.,,,-. . . r . s.., : , - - -.1.' ''''''''-' ' 1 : 71111111 04 '.•,..• ' .01 ' ..A;:g,'..,!:ii?';:','''. •''''.-'-,.:. '- ..,...'=;:s..— ,. ........ ..-07i-=',./=.=' '''''', ' ' . ., = = 1:4*.:.1 0',!IISP;,A,,': .-.''.7.,': ' ...., •-' • :. . . '.:'• APIA:ZI-e:7'. :,.=.1.;..',`.-':7 7..;;'''..:..%" ...'''.. .:..';:':,,,i .,• . '1 r " .. ,,, , —..,,,?0,,,,,.... .-,.... s •• ..-i- ,:: '.-. • it- !.,.-.,,,,,..,4,....)-4,4;,,,:-.:" .,:',,s. , . -- , - -. w.. ..;,. 0,:sm,opts.,14.. - •--- •-.-, • .,.,:„.40 46?l'hiAx,qi,1%,,,,,,' • .-;-'''''...'' W •.....!1.N,.,'V,W?•'i.. ''''. '.. iiIIV:4,44A i,*At..N N.:.4.if'. ,"1......;'Z./r,,-,: '.7..., 7.a;•:.•;'.:.,4 t ,41.4 2:''''•1‘.4;::,..N4P4.-,,,,,:d.,,,:-.*:§e,,,,,I.:-, it 0,4N,*.$14,,r4 4, • .- - - --4- ' ;'1.0140 :g1"1I;;;;:0 ;;M:,;;i:!iii14;14`44.44 c•1 .I.;.•I.:`,4 1.14;1;;;"'4;,;:;:q•;',.§;;I;II:^14.;;;cP:;;;;*;00.;*;;qt.;;;;;O:e." I •*,•;,'-'1,''''''':,;,;4.`, 14.;;;2:i,,;',I"i 2.;'.7 4;'. •„,;''..;`';`'••``,..,'"1 ' • ; , • ` : ',''-,''',.:. ',';.,,'''4"'';`-' , , ,, , ,,— . I 0 1 ; .004;004141i4010 ri 141:$1°:,P.,';.;::7 ''.:!;-'s:'' ' ...-"'' ' .".It::::41,`,`i;;7 f;.1 5,;,ts::,.4:,.:-7.T.,...., ..i C.-.•,'4 i:::,:,7.;1,:i it:`::?;,';',,;`.,.'.,:*,:-;.C.. ',,--., ,...;.t., La ..., -:.%ios€.4.0.:ii:LiMNI`lift 0;;I: .Mil,4.41,.,• ,,_.-'_.,:. '',. • ',4,',,t'','' ,`,.;).c.` ''.,!;.`, .4."`',`" ; ''c.' .;,c ',.."1.1' .... a I zI § ! ?,=4 ,e, , -. '''''41141eitile 4 0....0.!2.,P.1 t.,,k*I.;p1.? , ,, ,,„..,,;„.-...-.,..,..,. .;...,.,.. . ..,.7-...•:.•,:r.:::..•., --,,,- ,,,,,, •*. A. ° IL: e' Z ' ' ',,1610,4k.I.k:r. "k ...-:-,_,','..-.--•:,_'.:19•ic..;.,,,,,r , w ' ',- .47090:PriNgs . i•4 : P•514,:-P , .., -,•'-:9 . _:.,,,:,....,. .-:,.,,:.-:-..;,.:.::.-.,..,--:;,-..,-,-,--,:- ..r ,/r.,:,..i.,,,:,,, ,, ::::: „.....----. : . , . . P, 0401111.g.Arit.. 0,10',0 ,.' !;;;;,:,,,.,,...'4 '''• -4':• ..•:';:, -','!',Lo.'.'i.'"'-7-.:•'. •:.-•'f..' ...-......;..1`:',....'...'",i.t........,„.1.1„„...',., ...) "" 0 t" .3 / I . . . .,.., .,....r 901$L'4:0;'", ,i1Phf-'...--•-%.''''''.r, '' •''''"''''' 4"; • .."•'. f 1., ', •' :-'' ''-.-':-' •'.' ' .. '' '...-= ,"; ,',"'r•... , .; .1 1 1 , . i ° , ., .' :' ,, ' 4:N.11 f ri.h.I...IN• '7.0 qi7 '.',...i:'.!..,-:,_.....g„'„,,-,:i.•:;,....-z-A;...".„,,,,j: .!..-:'.7!-,'•;:•!.'r:,...'.........7.,.:•:-...••••.. .•,-.,..f•-•7.,- .,:.-r, li,#, '., i Ia.,,N. ,7,01q.011•41t,4340,44N10.0.4$04',t.1 c.',14Yrqi;.' ,.1.`...!•i'•;.:(..., ,., •ei:.,r-,....i.; I. ,1. -'1%;,:..'",.-,1,.;-•s.,';:r.', -, ',":,,,....'-,':•...,•: -;'......,,... . ,. '':-.--%',,. „ , -.44kii..;to1:0•44010nii!ifttb gir,•$,Alitle 430.4=,;,-. ."-3.'• •, •: ,.. •. ;.., ';,i? . .:•:•.,-.,-,..-,-.`..-.4,..,•',-- \ -. , / >:....,::: -.v..t , ''",. '' i: - ' . il!'i'4:4*14•:4114""PN.444741440•641 ' ''';* ''---- ''.:: '''' i'''::4'''''''''1.::1';' q ..',',; 'r:71',.i.;.:''':'.;''' `" ,' ___J ---','' k,4 ' •'-',. i . . 1 k 1 - 00,44440.4.0tkr:,'11: 4".010010,0;i4;'.7.- -4•-•-,.y - • ,.•.- : .s,,,.: ., : .0.-',,,„...,,,..- -• ______-,,•,- --,.'7,,,,:-.),L-g,---,. .„! , ,, i ff."'0,,, '•' '.--r--.... - -•-- 2 i!ill!, 'Pi q..,' -'._..r.^?:.;'4.4.-'"ZIA 1111:410',.i4A7'4111 .P.,.„'A . 1..4::1 f %,''''?':.';',.-ri,%:.:. '.' f,':,;,----'-‘0o-•,;;;,.1---`4.,,i . 1 '- ! .. .'"..-..'s .'"J'"'; '''.1.' ) 040,04,;:ottlitlf 044, P;",itil.',.:0, ';;:i.,,-,!:%:, Iii"...:Tr.'" 7,''l'"1 pNi.$1. !..1.. t 1"."...---f•'-.••.-''' ',.," ''.7...‘.. ,--, .1. '•" 4 i . • • _ r . -.- . - ----ri.r i •,1 ,,, .,:t40.1.4,4410140.. ..ic.:4 ..-/,>s,,q,',v,i,,,),*4.-,,,,k4 T.4.--..-•""'',1:'..i'..;%:1' ..e.--.W! . • , ...,0 '•!,'45541:444' .,,,-?,°. '%'-'e', :,..!1/.4 L-R V.i.:,,,*. ,..1,rq .',"'f.:-...t.:;'... (\-1 //:',..i,-:;- r-.., „---., .. -•• • '''!' ' k ''-'I ".' '• -":".,'*!==''•41,....k,..-Z•11=1,,..4 ',O.:,l.,4..t.'"' .,..-=-J.....,,,, A . •,,,,,, 1 . 0....,, E--, Z W = U < < ATTACHMENT A WASTEWATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2005-2010 ' „inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's sanitary sewer system consists of about 184 miles of gravity sewers,23 lift stations with associated force mains, and approximately 3,400 manholes. Wastewater is discharged to regional facilities at over 70 locations within the service area. The locations of Renton's sewer interceptors and lift stations,as well as Metro's sewer lines,are shown in Figure 9-1. The City's Wastewater Utility serves approximately 13,800 customers,which includes approximately ninety-five percent of the city's population and eighty-five percent of the city's land area. The remaining five percent of the population currently utilizes private, on-site wastewater disposal systems,typically septic system,while the balance of the land area either utilizes private systems or remains undeveloped. The capacity of the existing facilities is adequate to handle the current demand. The Lake Washington East Basin while currently having sufficient capacity,needs some improvements to its Sunset Interceptor to assure sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. The West Renton Sub-basin also needs to be further evaluated to determine potential capacity restraints. As part of the Wastewater Utility's update to its Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan scheduled for 2005,a full hydraulic model is being developed to evaluate, system wide,the long term need and timing for upsizing of existing interceptors and the timing for additional interceptors for new portions of our service area. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is defined by the ability to move sewage from the point of origin, the customer, to the treating agency,King County,in a safe and efficient manner. This ability is determined by the physical condition of Renton's system and the capacity available in the system. It is the Renton Wastewater Utility's responsibility to maintain the system in a safe condition and monitor the standards for new construction. The lastewater Utility is also responsible for ensuring that capacity exists in the system prior to new connections or that 4410t'he capacity is created as part of the new development. The level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is developed through coordination with and subject to the policies, design criteria,and standards used for planning and operating a sanitary sewer system as established by the laws and policies of several agencies. Those agencies, in order by authority,are the Department of Ecology(Criteria for Sewage Works Design),King County(King County Wastewater Treatment Division), and the City of Renton. The Wastewater Utility has maintained a simple hydraulic model of the sewer system. This model uses the size,type, and slope of the pipes to determine the capacity of the each component(segment)of the system. Because the slope of pipes can change segment to segment and flows may be merging at'branches'the capacity of the system may change block by block. It is, therefore,not feasible, with our current model,to provide a standard statement on the capacity available in Renton's sewer system. As stated above, the Utility is developing a new hydraulic model that will allow the Utility to perform dynamic analysis on any portion of its interceptor system given any scenario,to determine capacity within the system. The model is also based upon two years worth of wet-weather data that was developed as part of a regional effort by King County. This new tool will give us much greater ability to predict future capacity within our interceptors. The Wastewater Utility's goal is to have sufficient capacity to handle what the Utility considers the'worst case scenario'. That is,the amount of waste if everybody was discharging their highest amount at the same time and the system was experiencing the highest amount of inflow and infiltration anticipated. I1I-21 ATTACHMENT A For existing and projected development Renton uses the following criteria for flow projection: • Average Single Family Domestic Flow 270 gallons per day per unit Average Multi-Family Domestic Flow 190 gallons per day per unit Light Industrial 2800 gallons per acre per day Heavy Industrial site specific Commercial 2800 gallons per acre per day Office 2800 gallons per acre per day Recreation 300 gallons per acre per day Public 600 gallons per acre per day Manufacturing Park 2800 gallons per acre per day Peak Infiltration(New System) 600 gallons per acre per day Peak Inflow(New System) 500 gallons per acre per day Peak Inflow/Infiltration(Existing System) From Sewer Hydraulic Model Peaking factor for system average 2.0 X Depth to Diameter Ratio 0.80(eight tenths) The criteria listed above are based upon Table IV-3 of the 1998 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan,with an amendment for actual Inflow and Infiltration values based upon our updated hydraulic model. This criterion is subject to change based upon the latest adopted Long Range Wastewater Management Plan or amendments thereto. These flows are averages used as standards. Actual design flows may vary considerably,depending upon land use. The Wastewater Utility will consider verifiable alternate design flows that may be submitted. If Renton's sewer system has the capacity to handle the flows projected,based upon the above criteria,or a developer improves the system to provide the capacity,the project achieves concurrence with the Wastewater Utility's level of service. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan 2005-2010 `"' Based on the forecasted growth in population and employment over the next 20 years, daily wastewater flows are predicted to increase by about 10.5 million gallons per day(mgd.) This increase is expected to impact the entire system, with the greatest impact expected to occur in the East Cedar River Basin and Lake Washington East Basin. In order to maintain the desired level of service and accommodate the projected growth, facility improvements will be needed in the Lake Washington East Basin over the next three years. Another factor affecting level of service is the age of the existing system. A significant portion of the city's wastewater collection and conveyance system is over fifty years old. Some of these mains cannot be relied upon to provide the desired level of service without major repair and/or replacement. Consequently,the primary component of the six-year facility plan is the repair and replacement of the existing system in order to maintain the current level of service. Some of the geographic areas in which these mains are located will experience more growth than will others,but facility improvements will be needed regardless. It is currently the policy of the Wastewater Utilities that all parcels connecting to the sewer system pay for their fair share of the system. This is accomplished in a combination of three methods: 1. Local Improvement Districts may be formed with the city installing the sewers using LID bonds encumbering the participating parcels; 2. The Wastewater Utility may front the cost of new sewers and hold Special Assessment Districts against benefiting parcels; and 3. Developers or potential users will front the cost of extending the main with the ability to hold a latecomer agreement against the other parcels that potentially benefit. Projects that replace and rehabilitate the existing system,as well as operation and maintenance costs,will be funded , through rates paid by existing customers. Existing sewer customers will not be required to participate in Special Assessment District fees, latecomer fees,or local improvement districts unless they redevelop or increase the density on their property. I1I-22 • ATTACHMENT A Table 9-1 below lists the projects needed to meet growth,along with the sources of funds for them for the period 2005- 2010,based upon the six-year growth projections and the desired level of wastewater service. Table 9-1 Wastewater Capital Facilities 2005-2010 Wastewater Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Sanitary Sewer Main Extensions 2,000 - - - Total Sources of Funds: Oper.RevBonds 2,000 Licenses and Fees Other Taxes Grants Loans Not Funded Total 2,000‘441 - - - - - rrr+ III-23 a 1 a MERCERWI \ ,41 z Figure 9-1 ISLAND ... ,, Y NEWCAST6$ i ..y, t r SANW TRUNKITARY SELINESER $EA�`SZTi L r k LLA.._i -..\ • Lift Stations f } Metro Trunk Lines C .• � \\ • n City of Renton interceptors 4 ke--- r) oil • • Metro's East Division - Reclamation Plant A aro ti .s 4a `" • City Limits ~ ... <^� • - Urban Growth Boundary . t- - iiii:::: ::....:,-...._:::::::::....:::....::::-.- - . „ t-4.,... �� = ( =s_i City of Renton Sanitary Sewer y ,/� Al >I r- Service�1re8 11 1 _- / �. J ,.. .11 I ' '�: : .;;.; -- l 0 , 6000 12000 'IA t 1:72,000 KEN -- PAR11•11K0 �` "},� Note: For graphic presentation only 1 .--j �_ Facilities aze not to scale. _ j "� v. 11SPID LONG RANGE PLANNING ` —1--- o.Drnobon % R Maconie,D.Vimeski,D.Ellis 7...--4 . 8 Fetxaary 2001 I . .. ATTACHMENT A SURFACE WATER UTILITY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2005-2010 Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton is composed of various drainage basins and sub-basins. The major basins within the existing City limits include the East Lake Washington, West Lake Washington,May Creek, Lower Cedar River and Black River basins. The City of Renton is located at the outlet end of a majority of these basins that discharge into either the Green/Duwamish River or into Lake Washington. The Surface Water Utility's service area within the existing City corporate boundaries is approximately 17.2 square miles. The existing surface water system includes rivers, streams, ditches, swales, lakes, wetlands, detention facilities (pond and piped systems),water quality swales,wetponds,wetvaults,oil/water separators, coalescing plate oil/water separators,pipes,catch basins,manholes,outfalls and pump stations. The natural surface water systems (rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands)are shown on Renton's Critical Area Maps. A majority of the water quantity and quality facilities are privately owned and maintained on-site as required in accordance with the Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance(RMC Chapter 22, Section 4-22). The Surface Water Utility owns, maintains and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated for storm and surface water management purposes. The Utility currently owns, operates and maintains approximately 204 miles of storm pipe systems including approximately 8000 catch basin and manhole structures, 19 detention facilities and 37.67 miles of ditch systems. A combination of the public and some of the private storm system is shown in the Surface Water Utility Storm System Inventory Maps and Attributes data base which is too large to present here. Level of Service Background 'he Surface Water Utility's policies,design criteria,and standards used for planning, engineering,operating and `lla1'haintaining the storm and surface water systems are based upon requirements that originate from many sources. Together,these regulations define the acceptable level of service for surface water. The primary Federal, State and local agencies and regulations which affect the City of Renton's level of service standard for surface and storm water systems are listed below: 1. Federal Agencies/Regulations: a. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA): i. Federal Clean Water Act ii. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit) b. Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE) i. Nationwide/404 Individual Permit Requirements ii. Federal Emergency Management Act standards III-25 ATTACHMENT A 2. State Agencies/Regulations: a. Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDOE): Noid i. Stormwater Discharge Permits(NPDES). ii. Temporary Water Quality Modification Permits iii. Water Quality Certification Permits iv. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Permit v. Shoreline Management Program(SMP) vi. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan vii. 2001 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington b. Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) i. Hydraulic Project Approval Permits 3. Local Agencies/Regulations a. Cedar River Basin Plan b. May Creek Basin Plan c. Green River Basin Plan d. Green River Flood Control Zone District/Green River Basin Program e. King County Flood Hazard Reduction Plan e. King County Surface Water Design Manual as adapted by Renton Level of Service Standard in Renton The Surface Water Utility level of service is the adopted surface water design standards which are consistent with the above referenced federal,state and local regulations as specified in the City of Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage ordinance(RMC 4-22). New surface water management systems are designed to accommodate the future land use condition runoff based upon the city's Land Use Element and the future land use plans of neighboring jurisdictions. The standards specified in the city-adopted portions of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual require that: 1. Post-development peak rate of runoff be controlled to the pre-developed peak rate of runoff up to the 10- year design storm; 2. Water quality facility "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) such as biofiltration,wetponds, coalescing plate oil/water separators and erosion control measures are used; 3. Pipe systems be designed to convey the 25-year post-developed design storm without overflowing the system and pipe conveyance systems have adequate capacity to convey the 100-year design storm provided that the runoff is contained within defined conveyance system elements without inundating or over topping the crown of a roadway; and/or no portions of a building will be flooded; and/or if overland sheet flow occurs, it will flow through a drainage easement. 4. New drainage ditches or channels be designed to convey at least the peak runoff from the 100-year design storm without over-topping. As a condition of SEPA,the City requires projects in areas of the City that drain to streams that flow down steep ravines to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirement and to meet the Level 2 Flow Control and Duration standard. Projects have also been required to comply with the surface water design standards in the 2001 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington when deemed appropriate by the City as a condition of SEPA, or because it was required as a condition of another agencies permit. It is anticipated that the City will be adopting new storm and surface water design standards within the new two to five years to be equivalent to the 2001 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The update is expected to I1I-26 ATTACHMENT A be required as a condition of the pending Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System National Pollution Elimination System Phase 2 storm water permit that will be issued to the City for the discharge of runoff into waters of the United States in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. 'ir++' Projects that comply with the above-cited standards will achieve an acceptable level of service for surface water management purposes within the City of Renton. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan,2005-2010 The capital facilities estimated to be needed to solve current surface water management problems and to prevent future surface water management problems associated with the growth projected for the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed sources of funding are listed in Table 10-1. The sources of revenues to be utilized by the Surface Water Utility to implement the needed capital improvements include the following: 1. Surface Water Utility rates; 2. Permit fees and system development charges; 3. Revenue bonds; 4. Private latecomers agreements; 5. Surface Water Utility Special Assessment Districts; 6. Low interest loans(state revolving funds,Public Works Trust Fund); 7. Cost-sharing interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions and special districts; 8. Army Corps of Engineers-Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects Program and other financial assistance programs available to municipalities authorized by Congress; 9. USDA Soil Conservation Service(SCS)Watershed Flood Prevention and Protection Act(Public Law 566) and other SCS programs; 10. Grants from state and federal agencies such as: a. Washington State Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund; b. Washington State Department of Community Development Flood Control Assistance Account Program; c. Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board and other grants that may be available from the County, State or Federal Government to improve fish habitat; d. Washington State legislative appropriations approved for Special Surface Water Utility projects (Cedar River Delta project); and 11. Other unidentified federal, state and local grant programs. As is evident in Table 10-1 on the following page,the Surface Water Utility proposed to use all or any combination of the financial sources to fund the needed capital facilities. III-27 ATTACHMENT A Table 10-1 Surface Water Utility Capital Facilities 2005-2010 Surface Water Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 'tad Wetland Mitigation Bank 50 150 1,300 - - Storm System Improvement 900 1130 800 1120 1580 675 Springbrook Creek Improvements 150 850 0 100 200 Cedar River Basin Plan - - 130 700 - Green River Ecosystem Restoration 10 10 10 20 10 10 May Creek Basin Plan Implement. 275 - - - - Lower Cedar River Sediment 275 250 250 250 600 1300 Management Program Small Drainage Problems Program 180 150 150 150 150 150 Miscellaneous&Emergency 50 50 50 50 50 50 Projects Plans and Program 110 110 110 110 110 115 Total(dollars are 1000's) 2000 2700 2800 2400 2600 2500 Sources of Funds: Oper. Rev. Bonds 1490 2200 2300 1900 2100 2000 Licenses and Fees 500 500 500 500 500 500 Other Taxes Grants 10 Loans Not Funded ,, ad Total 2000 2700 2800 2400 2600 2500 II1-28 ATTACHMENT A PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Nape CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2005-2010 Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton is the primary provider of park and recreation services within the city limits. These services include parks, indoor facilities, open space areas and recreation programs. Other suppliers that provide facilities and services include the Renton School District and several private enterprises. Table 11-1 below is a summary of the amount of park and open space area provided by the City of Renton; provided by others within the City's Proposed Annexation Area(PAA)and the total for the overall Planning Area. Table 11-1 Park and Open Space Areas Summary Type of Facility Renton PAA Planning Area Total Neighborhood Parks 92.49 22.70 115.19 Community Parks 130.36 90.00 220.36 Regional Parks 55.33 0.00 55.33 Open Space Areas 683.11 236.00 919.11 Linear Parks&Trails 91.21 0.00 91.21 Special Use Parks&Facilities 190.02 0.00 190.02 441.0 TOTAL 1,242.52 348.70 1,591.22 Tables 11-2 and 11-3 on the following pages list the individual park and open space areas that comprise the categories summarized above. Table 11-2 details Renton's Parks and Open Spaces by category and Table 11-3 lists public land in Renton's PAA. The table lists the name of each park or open space,its size in acres,and its status as of January 2001. The locations of the individual park facilities listed in Table 11-2 are shown in Figure 11-1, which immediately follows the Table. III-29 ATTACHMENT A Table 11-2 Public Park and Open Space Areas in Renton Detailed Listing .44101 Park Acres Status Neighborhood Parks(20) Earlington Park 1.54 Developed Glencoe Park .42 Developed Heather Downs Park 4.30 Undeveloped Jones Park 1.18 Developed Kennydale Beach 1.76 Developed Kennydale Lions Park 5.66 Developed Kiwanis Park 9.00 Developed Maplewood Park 2.20 Developed Maplewood Roadside Park 1.00 Developed North Highlands Park 2.64 Developed Philip Arnold Park 10.00 Developed Riverview Park 11.50 Developed Sit In Park 0.50 Developed Springbrook Watershed Park 16.00 Undeveloped Sunset Court 0.50 Developed Talbot Hill Reservoir 2.50 Developed Thomas Teasdale Park 10.00 Developed Tonkins Park 0.29 Developed Tiffany Park 7.00 Developed Windsor Hill Park 4.50 Developed TOTAL 92.49 Acres Community Parks(7) Cedar River Park 23.07 Developed Cedar River Trail Park 24.20 Developed Highlands Park 10.40 Developed Liberty Park 11.89 Developed Narco Property 15.00 Undeveloped Piazza&Gateway 0.80 Developed Ron Regis Park 45.00 Developed TOTAL 130.36 Acres Regional Parks(1) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 55.33 Developed 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 III-30 ATTACHMENT A • Renton Wetlands 125.00 Undeveloped Springbrook Watershed 38.00 Undeveloped Edlund/Korum Property 17.90 Undeveloped "tireTOTAL 683.11 Acres Linear Parks&Trails(7) Burnett Linear Park 1.0 acre Developed Cedar River Trail 4.5 miles Developed Honey Creek Trail 1.0 miles Developed Springbrook Trail 2.0 miles Developed S.W. 16th Trail .5 miles Developed Garden/166/Houser 1.0 miles Developed Lake Washington Blvd 1.5 miles Developed TOTAL 10.5 Miles. 1 Acre Special Use Parks&Facilities(10) Boathouse 4,242 s.f. Developed Carco Theatre(310 seats) 11,095 s.f. Developed Community Garden/Greenhouse .46 acres Developed Highlands Neighborhood Center 11,906 s.f. Developed Maplewood Golf Course 190 acres Developed Maplewood Golf Course/Restaurant/Pro Shop 15,508 s.f. Developed Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range 11,559 s.f. Developed North Highlands Neighborhood Center 4,432 s.f. Developed Renton Community Center 36,000 s.f. Developed Renton Senior Activity Center 18,264 s.f. Developed Veterans Memorial Park 0.2 acres Developed *vir TOTAL 181,825 Sq.Ft., 190.66 Acres CITY-WIDE TOTAL 1,152.95 Acres 10.5 Miles 181,825 Square Feet III-31 ATTACHMENT A Table 11-3 Public park and open space areas in Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas (PAAs) `o' ei Detailed Listing Maplewood Community Park Site 40.0 Acres Undeveloped Petrovitsky Park 50.0 Acres Developed Sub-Total(Community Parks) 90.0 Acres Sierra Heights Park 4.7 Acres Developed Maplewood Park 4.8 Acres Developed Cascade Park 10.7 Acres Developed Lake Youngs Park 2.5 Acres Developed Sub-Total(Neighborhood Parks) 22.7 Acres May Creek Greenway 150.0 Acres Renton Park 19.0 Acres Metro Waterworks 10.0 Acres Maplewood Heights 5.0 Acres Soos Creek Greenway 52.0 Acres Sub-Total(Open Space) 236.0 Acres Total,Public Park and Open Space Within Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas 348.7 Acres In addition to the park and open space areas,the city operates a number of specialized facilities as an ongoing component of the total recreational services it provides. Table 11-4 which follows lists the specialized facilities owned by the city as well as those specialized public facilities within the city limits that are owned by others. Nosoe I11-32 ATTACHMENT A • Table 11-4 Specialized Facilities within the Renton City Limits liarie Number Facility Comments Ballfields City-owned: 1 Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park 1 Kennydale Lions Park 1 Kiwanis Park 2 Liberty Park 2 lighted 1 Maplewood Park Small Field 1 Ron Regis Lighted 1 Philip Arnold Park Lighted 1 Thomas Teasdale Park 1 Tiffany Park TOTAL 11 FIELDS Within the city limits but owned by others: 2 Hazen High School 2 Highlands Elementary School Small Fields 1 Hillcrest School Small Field 4 Honeydew Elementary School Small Fields 3 McKnight Middle School 4 Nelson Middle School Small Fields 4 Renton High School 1 Talbot Hill Elementary 1 Tiffany Park Elementary Now 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 *tow 2 Highlands Park 2 lighted 2 Kiwanis Park III-33 ATTACHMENT A 3 Liberty Park 3 lighted 1 North Highlands Park 2 Philip Arnold Park 2 lighted 3 Talbot Hill Reservoir 2 Tiffany Park TOTAL 17 COURTS Within the city limits but owned by others: 4 Hazen High School 4 McKnight Middle School 2 Nelson Middle School 5 Renton High School TOTAL 15 COURTS Swimming Pools Within the city limits but owned by others: 1 Hazen High School Indoor TOTAL 1 POOL Level of Service Standards for park and recreation levels of service were first established nationally based on"Standard Demand" and have been modified at state and local levels to meet local needs. The national level of service(LOS) standards were established by committees of recreation professionals based on practical experience in the field, and are felt to be most useful in quantifiable terms,i.e.acres of park land per population served. The most recognized standards are those developed by the National Recreation Park Association(NRPA). In 1983 that organization published a report titled"Recreation,Park and Open Space Standards" that is well recognized in the recreation field. The Park CFP establishes a 2-tiered approach: 1)an overall LOS standard based on total population and total acreage; and 2)LOS standards for individual neighborhoods and for specific types of parks and facilities within 'IS parks. The overall LOS is a gauge of whether the City is meeting overall concurrence for GMA. The second tier identifies areas where deficiencies exist so the City can target its funds to eliminate those deficiencies while still maintaining overall LOS. The proposed LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space plan is 18.58 acres/1,000 population. The 2004 LOS in Renton is 20.83 acres/1,000 population. The LOS within Renton's Potential Annexation Areas(PAAs)is only 6.9 acres/1,000, which reduces the 2004 overall Planning Area LOS to 14.17 acres/1,000. Continued acquisition of park and open space lands will be needed as the City's residential growth continues within its existing boundaries, and as it expands into its underserved PAA's. The recommended service levels for Renton were developed after discussions with City staff and the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee. They are based on participation ratios by which a community can estimate in quantifiable terms the number of acres or facilities required to meet the population demand. Attaching a standard to a population variable makes it easy to forecast future needs as the population grows. The table below identifies the current overall LOS in Renton and within Renton's planning area. III-34 • ATTACHMENT A • Table 1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) -OVERALL err Park& Open Existing LOS Space Land Population (Acres/1,000) City of Renton 1,153 55,360 20.83 Renton's PAA's 348.70 50,600 6.9 Total Planning Area 1,501.7 105,960 14.17 Starting below,existing service levels and recommended standards by park types within Renton are given. Each park type compares the NRPA Standard to the existing service levels and the recommended standards. This information is provided to indicate how Renton's current level of service compares to national and local standards. '4010, *tone III-35 ATTACHMENT A Table 2 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)—BY PARK TYPE Figures shown are in acres/1,000 populationNoO, Park and Open Space Areas 1. Neighborhood Parks Definition: Neighborhood parks are small park areas(usually 2-10 acres in size)utilized for passive use and unstructured play. They often contain an open space for field sports, a children's playground, a multi-purpose paved area, a picnic area and a trail system. For heavily wooded sites, the amount of active use area is substantially reduced. NRPA Standard 1-2 Acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Renton): 1.8 Acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area) 1.1 Acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 1.2 Acres/1,000 Population Comments: The recommended standard reflects the shifting emphasis on larger parks and open space recreational opportunities that cost less to maintain and operate than do neighborhood parks. 2. Community Parks Definition: Community parks are traditionally larger sites that can accommodate organized play and contain a wider range of facilities. They usually have sport fields or other major use facilities as the central focus of the park. In many cases, they will also serve the neighborhood park function. Community parks generally average 10-25 acres in size with a substantial portion of them devoted to active use. Sometimes, smaller sites with a singular purpose that maintain a community-wide focus can be considered community parks. NRPA Standard: 5-8 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Renton): 2.5 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 2.1 acres/1,000 population Recommended LOS Standard: 2.5 acres/1,000 population Comments: The low existing ratio reflects a past emphasis within Renton on neighborhood parks. While the recommended standard is well below the NRPA standard,it represents a shifting emphasis to community parks. 3. Regional Parks Definition: Regional parks are large park areas that serve geographical areas that stretch beyond the community. They may serve a single purpose or offer a wide range of facilities and activities. In many cases they also contain large areas of undeveloped open space. Many regional parks are acquired because of unique features found or developed on the site. I1I-36 ATTACHMENT A • NRPA Standard: 5-10 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Renton: 1.1 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 0.5 acres/1,000 population Recommended Standard: 1.08 acres/1,000 population Comments: Renton has the potential for developing another regional park located in the Cedar River corridor. The recommended standard of 1.08 acres per 1,000 population recognizes the potential for creating a Cedar River Regional Park consisting of the following Special Use Parks: Cedar River Park,Maplewood Roadside Park, Maplewood Golf Course, and the Cedar River Property. 4. Open Space Areas Definition: This type of park area is defined as general open space, trail systems, and other undeveloped natural areas that includes stream corridors,ravines, easements, steep hillsides or wetlands. Often they are acquired to protect an environmentally sensitive area or wildlife habitats. In other cases they may be drainage corridors or heavily wooded areas. Sometimes trail systems are found in these areas. Existing LOS (Renton) 13 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 8.9 acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 12.7 acres/1,000 Population Comments: The recommended LOS Standard of 12.7 acres per 1,000 population represents an increase over the present situation,as several additional open space systems have been identified for preservation. A majority of this type of land is wetlands, steep slopes, or otherwise not suitable for recreational development. low 5. Linear Parks Definition: Linear parks are open space areas, landscaped areas,trail systems and other land that generally follow stream corridors,ravines or other elongated features, such as a street,railroad or power line easement. This type of park area usually consists of open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of this type of area. Existing LOS (Renton): 1.9 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 0.9 acres/1,000 Population Recommended Standard: 0.3 acres/1,000 Population Comments: The majority of linear park land is found along the banks of the Cedar River and Honey Creek. There are other opportunities for linear parks utilizing utility corridors. 6. Special Use Parks and Facilities Definition: Specialized parks and facilities include areas that generally restrict public access to certain times of the day or to specific recreational activities. The golf course and major structures are included in this category. Existing LOS (Renton): 3.7 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 1.8 acres/1,000 Population Recommended Standards: 0.8 acres/1,000 Population I1I-37 ATTACHMENT A 7. Total Park Land • Presently,Renton has 1,197.85 acres of total park land within the city boundaries. Together with another 348.7 acres of public park and open space land within Renton's PAAs(Potential Annexation Areas),the total amount of park and open space land within Renton's planning area is 1,546.55 acres. ``rd NRPA Standard: 15-20 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Renton): 20.83 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS(Planning Area): 14.60 acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 18.58 acres/1,000 Population Comments: While the recommended standard of 18.58 acres per 1,000 population seems high,most of the acreage is in the open space category. Most of this land is undevelopable as steep hillsides,wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. Specialized Facilities Below are the recommended levels of service for specialized recreation facilities. In addition to the NRPA standard and the existing facility ratio, an estimate of the participation level in Renton compared to the average for the Pacific Northwest is also provided. The existing inventory includes city-owned facilities as well as those facilities within the city limits owned by other public entities. 1. Ballfields(Includes baseball and softball fields) NRPA Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population Existing Participation: Average Existing Inventory: 20 fields * Existing Facility Ratio: .9 field per 2,500 population Recommended Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population * Small fields were excluded for purposes of evaluation. 2. Football/Soccer Fields NRPA Standard: 1 field per 10,000 population Existing Participation: 75 %below average Existing Inventory: 26 fields Existing Facility Ratio: .9 field per 3,000 population Recommended Standard: 1 field per 3,000 population Comments Because of the extremely high existing facility ratio and the below average participation rate,the recommended standard--while substantially above the NRPA standard—is roughly the same as the existing facility ratio. 3. Tennis Courts NRPA Standard: 1 court per 2,000 population Existing Participation: 15 %below average Existing Inventory: 32 courts Existing Facility Ratio: .9 court per 2,500 population Recommended Standard: 1 court per 2,500 population Comments Based on the substantially above average existing facility ratio,the recommended standard is almost equivalent to the existing facility ratio. 4. Swimming Pools(indoor) NRPA Standard: 1 pool per 20,000 population I1I-38 ATTACHMENT A • Existing Participation: Average Existing Inventory: 1 indoor pool Existing Facility Ratio: .4 per 40,000 population Recommended Standard: 1 pool per 40,000 population Comments 5. Walking Trails Existing Participation: 16%above average Existing Inventory: 7.5 miles(off-street) Existing Facility Ratio: .15 miles per 1,000 population Recommended Standard: .20 miles per 1,000 population Comments The recommended standard reflects a strong local interest in walking trails and the fact that the city directed its efforts to other areas until recent years. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan—,2005-2010 Table 11-4 on the following page shows the projects which may need to be begun over the next six years to achieve the recommended level of service standards if the forecast growth--and therefore, demand--occurs. The Table also includes potential funding sources for each project,where known. III-39 ATTACHMENT A Table 11 -4 Parks Capital Facilities 2005-2010 Park Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Black River Riparian Forest - - -_ 85 75 Cedar River Ball Field Lighting 200 - - - - Cedar River Trail Extension 1,000 1,000 - - - Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion 500 600 - - Heather Downs Development. 50 750 - - - Maplewood Community Park Dev. 500 3,000 - 3,000 New Maintenance Facility 5,500 3,000 0 - - Parks Contingency Plan - - - - North Highlands Community Center 150 2,000_ - - - _ Pavilion Improvement - - - - - _ Grant Matching Fund 200 200 200 200 200 Carr Road Acquisition Henry Moses Aquatic Center 1,000 500 1,000 500 Cedar River Trail Extension _ Golf Course Veteran's Memorial Park East Renton Plateau Acquisition 2,100 North Highland Redevelopment1,000 - 600 TOTAL 7,100 8,950 4,300 2,285 3,775 2,700 This Section to Be Developed General Fund $2,100 $3,640 1,720 485 815 300 Licenses and Fees*-User Fees 260 260 280 660 Other Taxes 1,000 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Grants 750 750 1,000 500 1,000 1,100 Loans 3,000 3,000 Not Funded TOTAL $7,100 $8,950 4,300 2,285 3,775 2,700 *Includes Parks Mitigation Fees in 2001 and Golf Course fees to fund Golf Course Capital Improvements. Nvid 1II-40 ATTACHMENT A PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2005-2010 *+'` Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton provides police,municipal court, and jail services and facilities as part of its public safety responsibilities. Currently,all of these services and facilities are located on the city hall campus. Level of Service The police department has a total of 128 employees. Based on Renton's 2004 population of 54,900,the current level of service of police department employees to population is nearly 2.33 employees per 1,000 residents. The current level of service for officers is nearly 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents. With the population of Renton projected to grow to over 61,694 residents by the year 2010,the number of police department employees will have to increase to 140 to maintain the current level of service. It is also projected by the police department that with an increase in the general population would come an increase in the number of class I, II,and III crimes and a related increase in the number of court cases and jail days and in the size of the average daily jail population. To maintain the current level of service for both the municipal court and the jail would require an increase in the staff at those facilities. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan,2005-2010 In 1999 the mayors of the five member cities of Valley Communication Board(Auburn,Federal Way,Kent, Renton, and Tukwila)agreed to build a new 911 Center at a cost of$15,405,519. The Board has been collecting a surcharge on calls for the past five years for construction of a new facility. The net costs, with an assumption that a new dispatch system is not needed, will be$12,571,343.Each member city will be responsible for approximately$2.5 million of the construction costs. As of September 1999,the estimated annual costs of the law debt will be approximately$300,000 over 20 years. In the Capital Facilities Plan this cost is divided evenly between the Police and Fire Departments. Table 12-1 Public Safety Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Valley Communications Center* $150 $150 $150 $150 Total $150 $150 $150 $150 *Cost shown in 2001-2005 Capital Facilities Plan is split between the Public Safety and Fire Functions. Source of Funds 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Licenses and Fees $150 $150 $150 $150 Total $150 $150 $150 $150 I1I-41 Aar ATTACHMENT A FIRE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2005-2010 Inventory of Existing Facilities The Renton Fire Department provides fire protection services from five locations: Station 11 which is the main fire station across from Historic City Hall and serves the central part of the city; Station 12 which is located in Renton Highlands and serves the north and east portions of the city; and Station 13 which is located in the Talbot Hill area and serves the southeast portion of the city. Station 14 is located at Lind& S. 19th Street and serves the South portion of Renton. Additionally,King County Fire District 25 operationally is part of the Renton fire protection system;it serves the east portion of the city as well as portions of King County. Figure 13-1 on the following page shows the locations of the fire stations. Currently Station 11 is staffed by 9 personnel and is equipped with one engine company,one ladder company, one aid car and one command car. Station 12 is staffed by 5 personnel and is equipped with one engine company and one aid car. Station 13 is staffed by three personnel and one engine company and one aid unit. Station 14 is staffed by three personnel and equipped with an engine and 1 aid unit. The City's water system is also a critical component of fire protection service. Currently all areas of the city are served by the city water system. Level of Service Historically, level of service for fire suppression has been measured in a variety of qualitative and quantitative terms. However, in the city's Fire Department Master Plan(1987)the primary level of service criteria were response time and fire flow. Response time is an important criterion for level of service because there is a direct relationship between how long a fire burns and the temperatures created by the fire. Eventually temperatures become so high that "flashover" occurs,a process in which all combustible material in a room or building ignites simultaneously. Nod Reaching a fire before flashover occurs is an important consideration in fire suppression. Studies have shown that under normal dispatching procedures fire crews have about four to six minutes to reach a fire before flashover occurs. Fire flow is the second criterion for measuring the level of service for fire suppression. Fire flow refers to the amount of water that is available to spray on a fire and extinguish it. Understandably, water is an essential element for fire suppression,and the hotter a fire,the more water that must be available to extinguish it. Determining what is adequate fire flow depends upon a building's type of construction, floor area,and use. For example,adequate fire flow in the city's water system for a single-family wood frame house is 1,000 gallons per minute(gpm)whereas adequate fire flow for a shopping center or an industrial park is approximately 4,500 gpm. The third aspect of establishing level of service is personnel. Having trained firefighters in sufficient numbers is crucial to putting out a fire safely and efficiently. The number and training of firefighters also must fit with the department's strategic or tactical approach to fighting fires. The Renton fire department uses an aggressive attack strategy as opposed to a defensive approach strategy. 4001 III-42 ATTACHMENT A • In its Fire Department Master Plan,the City established the following standards for level of service: 1. Acceptable response time is defined as having the first responding units arrive on the fire scene in five minutes or less. 2. Acceptable response time is defined as having the second responding units arrive on the fire scene in ten minutes or less. 3. Acceptable fire flow is defined as having water available to all parts of the city in sufficient quantity and pressure to extinguish the worst-case fire in an existing or projected land use. 4. Acceptable personnel is defined as having five firefighters on site in first response and ten firefighters on site in second response. 5. Acceptable personnel is also defined as having sufficient personnel available through mutual aid and automatic response agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to efficiently and successfully extinguish the larger and more complex fires in residential,commercial, institutional and industrial buildings. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan,—2005-2010 With the exception of a few isolated small areas of the city, the "five firefighters in five minutes" level of service standard is being met. With regard to the "ten firefighters in ten minutes" level of service standard,this standard is being met in virtually the entire city. Similarly,the adequate fire flow level of service standard is being met city-wide. Generally, fire flows are adequate throughout the city, a long-range water system plan is being implemented to upgrade the few low fire flow areas, and development standards and review procedures are in place which require that necessary fire suppression measures are made available for all new construction. Given the population and employment growth projected for the year 2010, it is anticipated that some actions may be needed over the next six years to maintain the response time level of service standards. In the east Renton area the agreement with Fire District 25 whereby the city has assumed operational control of %se that facility coupled with Station 12 and the water system plan for the area should assure that both response time and fire flow standards will be maintained. In the Kennydale area a new station 15 will be constructed over the next six years. The station will be staffed with three firefighters,seven days a week. This means an additional fifteen firefighters along with the purchase of equipment. The total project includes the purchase of land, design, construction, hiring personnel,and purchase of equipment. Presently the northerly portion of the area is within the ten-minute response time standard but outside of the five-minute response time standard for Station 12. As pointed out in the Fire Department Master Plan,a new station 15 closer to I-405 and 44th would provide five-minute response time coverage to the entire area. Over the next six years, some single family and multi-family growth is projected for the Kennydale/Highlands area,as is some employment growth. This growth would increase somewhat the importance of providing improved service to the area in the near term. Given the residential and employment growth projected for the area after the year 2006,the importance of taking actions to improve the five-minute response time coverage increase substantially during that period. The solution recommended in the Fire Master Plan was to relocate Station 12 further to the east. This was accomplished in 2004. In the next six-year planning period,the City will build Station 15 to better serve the growing Highlands area. This project includes purchasing land, design, and construction. The City also anticipated improvements to Valley Communications Facilities over the next six years. Station 14 was built in the Valley industrial area to help handle the projected employment and multi-family growth for the area. In addition,there is still a need for a new facility for Station 13 due to its physical limitations in terms of its ability to accommodate the necessary equipment and personnel to maintain the current level of service standards as growth occurs. Station 13 was built as a temporary facility,until a current level of ilksi service standards as growth occurs. Station 13 was built as a temporary facility, until a decision was made whether to build a new station or collocate with Fire District 40. With the decision not to collocate a station,the need for a new facility is apparent. The project includes design and construction only. I11-43 ATTACHMENT A Table 13-1 Fire Capital Facilities r.rr 2005-2010 Fire Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Station 13 990 3,500 - - - Station 15 350 4,500 - - - Valley Communications Center 150 150 150 150 Total 1,490 8,150 150 150 This section to be developed Sources of Funds: General Fund 1,340 800 Licenses and Fees 150 150 150 150 Bonds Fire Mitigation Fees Total 1,490 8,150 150 150 Name NIG I1I-44 ATTACHMENT A • Figure 13-1 Existing and Proposed Fire Stations Figure I3-1 3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED at FIRE STATIONS )."-tri KCFD 25-2 AExisting City Fire Stations Hrucvuc saves usda Existing County fi 000 tnictK Fire Stations �t • Proposed Fire Station —i Relocations - is Proposed Hew / • ►••l• Ll Fire.Stations '�-; %\ Station 15 ( LAKE • � WASHINGTO ` jL 1 ,-,..._._i r I_I i ti [iii i Ti..t«• , 1 KCFD 20-1 j ` 's r 1...„K � \ Sle *in 12 Weal Hilll� r. r-•1 C� A :.� ��•—� Station 11 KCFD 25-1 r\,.._' — —IRaskin serves undo carnal I **alai Nn �1.\ !Melee Illtla � ..-*-"# ; Un..,rock i ,..r" IlI v.a.r I \`. 1 1 Ma. Wel.l Ar.•I I tan �.. Stat14 *il•+s sau r........1\j i j I •Z KCFD 40-42 j KCFD 40-41/ //\�1 1-•—.--. �i'i-, Renton Station 13 -11 1 % 1.___.. City of 1. i RENTON, tit - Lit WASHINGTON Sourc•: Renton Fire Department, 1986 ctSept. 1986 Novi III-45 ATTACHMENT A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/ADMINISTRATION CAPITAL FACILITIES • PLAN 2005-2010 The Neighborhood Grant Program provides$50,000 to be distributed in small matching grants to organized associations that from recognized geographic neighborhoods in Renton. The grant projects must be a benefit to the pubic,create physical improvements,build and enhance a neighborhood feature and be within Renton City limits. Funding for infrastructure implementation is provided for the Highlands Subarea Plan and the South Lake Washington Redevelopment Area. New development in these two areas will require additional transportation and utility investments needed to stimulate redevelopment. Table 14-1 Economic Development/Administration Facilities 2005-2010 Economic Development Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* Neighborhood Grants $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Highlands Subarea Plan 75 South Lake Washington 50 Redevelopment Total $175 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Sources of Funds: General Fund $175 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Total $175 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 I1I-46 ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT `B' COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT GOALS 1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City. 2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development. 3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves. Nkaire N-1 ATTACHMENT B TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose Statement IV-3 Goals IV-3 I. Natural Areas IV-3 II. Urban Separators IV-4 III. Established Residential Neighborhoods IV-5 IV. New Development in Commercial Districts and New Residential Subdivisions IV-7 A. Site Planning N-7 B. Gateways .. IV-9 C. Views and Focal Points IV-10 D. Architecture IV-10 E. Landscaping . W-1' ,40100 F. Streets, Sidewalks, and Streetscape . IV-12 G. Signage IV-14 H. Lighting IV-14 I. Urban Center IV-15 IV-2 ATTACHMENT B COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Community Design Element is to establish policies that set standards for high quality development, improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, and guide the Idevelopment of new neighborhoods that are part of a better community. Recognizing that the exceptional quality of life in Renton is dependent upon a strong local economy, these policies are intended to further that economic health. They are Ibased on the belief that a positive image and high quality development attracts more of the same, Goals: 1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City, 2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development, and 3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves. Discussion: The objectives and policies adopted to meet these goals address issues related to both the natural and built environment such as: how the physical organization of development can create a desirable place to live; the importance of view protection; ways to improve the streetscape;principles of vegetation preservation, selection, and law maintenance;principles of architectural and urban design; and the function of urban separators. I. Natural Areas Summary: Natural areas are an important component of the community. The purpose of including natural areas in the Community Design Element is not so that natural areas will be"designed,"but rather so that the built environment can be shaped in a manner that takes into consideration the natural environment. The Community Design Natural Areas objectives are intended to address: • Urban growth in relation to natural areas, • Protection and enhancement of natural areas, and • Public access to natural areas. Objective CD-A: The City's unique natural features, including land form, vegetation, lakeshore, river, creeks and streams, and wetlands should be protected and enhanced as opportunities arise. Policy CD-1: Integrate development into natural areas by clustering development and/or adjusting site plans to preserve wetlands, steep slopes, and notable stands of trees or other vegetation. Natural features should function as site amenities. Use Nrr IV-3 ATTACHMENT B incentives such as flexible lot size and configuration to encourage preservation and add amenity value. Nind Policy CD-2: During development, effort should be made to preserve watercourses as open channels. Policy CD-3: Site design should maximize public access to and create opportunities for use of shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a lake,river, stream, or wetland where such access would not jeopardize habitats and other environmental attributes of the water body. Policy CD-4: Development review of proposed projects should identify opportunities for increasing public access to Lake Washington, the Cedar River, wetlands, streams, and creeks in the City. Policy CD-5: Renton's public and private open space should be increased in size through acquisition of additional land or dedication of Native Growth Protection Area easements. Policy CD-6: Public open space acquisition should be consistent with the Long Range Parks,Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan Policy. II. Urban Separators Summary: Urban Separators are low-density residential areas,intended to establish edges between Renton and other communities. These transition areas will become more important as urban areas intensify. In some areas, natural features such as stream courses, landform, and vegetation already serve as buffers. These policies are implemented by the Resource Conservation and Residential 1 zoning designations. The Urban Separator policies should be considered along with Residential Low Density policies. Objective CD-B: Designate low-density residential and resource areas as Urban Separators to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, and to define Renton's boundaries. Policy CD-7—_The function of Urban Separators should be to: a. reinforce Reinforce the character of the City, b. establish Establish clear boundaries between the City and other communities, c. Separate high-density-intensity urban land uses from low-density-intensity uses and resource lands, and d. Protect environmentally sensitive ander critical areas. IV-4 ATTACHMENT B I Policy CD-8,: Locational criteria should consider the following types of lands for designation as Urban Separators: err a. Individual and interconnecting natural features, critical areas, public and private open space and water features. b. Existing and proposed individual and interconnecting parks;and agricultural areas. c. Areas that provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between urban communities. III. Established Residential Neighborhoods Summary: The policies included in this section of the Community Design Element are intended to guide construction of new, small-scale infill residential development and modifications to existing residential and commercial structures. Objective CD-C: Promote re-investment in and upgrade of existing residential neighborhoods through redevelopment of small, underutilized parcels with infill development, modification and alteration of older housing stock, and improvements to streets and sidewalks to increase property values. Policy CD-9,: Support modification of existing commercial and residential structures and site improvements that implement the current land use policies as re- investment occurs in neighborhoods. Such modifications may consist of parking lot design, landscaping renovation,new coordinated signage, and site plan/building alterations that update structures to contemporary standards. Policy CD-10,: Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along streets in established neighborhoods, where sidewalks have not been previously constructed. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic and, where practical, match existing sidewalks. Policy-CD-II,: Vacant property should be maintained(landscaped, pruned, mowed, and litter removed)or screened to prevent adverse visual, economic, and health/safety impacts on the surrounding area. Policy CD-12,: Infill development, defined as new short plats of nine or fewer lots, should be encouraged in order to add variety, updated housing stock, and new-increase vitality to of neighborhoods. Policy CD-13—_Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale Iof existing areas. Noe IV-5 ATTACHMENT B Policy CD-13.1: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-13.2: Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-14—_Architecture of new structures in established areas should be visually compatible with other structures on the site and with adjacent development. Visual compatibility should be evaluated using the following criteria: a. Where there are differences in height(e.g.,new two-story development adjacent to single-story structures), the architecture of the new structure should include details and elements of design such as window treatment, roof type, entries, or porches that reduce the visual mass of the structure. b. Garages, whether attached or detached, should be constructed using the same pattern of development established in the vicinity. c--.Structures should have entries, windows, and doors located to maintain privacy in neighboring yards and buildings: IV-6 ATTACHMENT B I IV. New-Development in Commercial Districts and New Residential Subdivisions `i"' Summary: Objectives and polices that address new-commercial infill and residential subdivision development are intended to serve multiple purposes. First, concerns about new development"fitting in"to established areas of Renton have resulted in an increased awareness that site design and architecture, when planned to be compatible with the context of the neighborhood or commercial area, can make the "fit"of the new project more comfortable. Second, these objectives and policies provide assistance to project proponents so when Iplanning new development for Renton;--they can be guided in their choices. Third, city officials, who must make decisions regarding new projects, can use these objectives and policies to guide their review of project proposals. Elements of new development represented by objectives and policies in this section include: A. Site planning B. Gateways C. Views and focal points D. Architecture E. Landscaping F. Streets, sidewalks, and streetscape G. Signs H. Lighting Nlari I. Urban Center A. Site Planning Summary: Site planning is the art and science of arranging structures, open space, and non-structural elements on land in a functional way so that the purpose of the development can be met, while keeping those elements in harmony with each other and with the context of the project. Objective CD-D: New neighborhood development patterns should be consistent with Renton's established neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network. Policy CD-15—: Land should be subdivided into blocks sized so that walking distances are minimized and convenient routes between destination points are available. I Policy CD-16--During land division, all lots should front streets or parks. Discourage single tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. Where a single-tier plat is the only viable alternative due to land configuration, significant environmental constraints, or location on a principal arterial, additional design features such as a larger setbacks, additional landscaping, or review of fencing should be required. a. Evaluation of land configuration should consider whether a different layout of streets or provision of alleys is physically possible and could eliminate the need for a single-tier plat. IV-7 ATTACHMENT B b. Evaluation of environmental constraints should consider whether the location and extent of critical areas prevents a standard plat design. c. Review of fencing should ensure that the development does not"turn its back" to public areas. Policy CD-17—_Development should be designed(e.g. site layout,building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space,parking, and outdoor activity areas)to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. I Policy CD-18—_Projects should only be approved at the upper end of density ranges when the following criteria are fully addressed in project level submission. a. Trees are retained, relocated, or planted to create sufficient vegetative cover to provide a landscape amenity, shade, and high quality-walking environment in an urban context. b. Lot size/configuration and lot coverage is sufficient to provide private recreation/outdoor space for each resulting lot. c. Structures can be sited so that entry, window, and door locations create and maintain privacy on adjoining yards and buildings. Architectural and landscape design should: • Prevent window and door openings looking directly into another structure, • Prevent over-reliance on fencing, or N' • Prevent projections of building elements into required setbacks in a pattern that reduces provision of light, visual separation, and/or require Ivariances eor modification of standards. Density may be reduced within the allowed range to bring projects into compliance with these criteria. I Policy CD-19—_During development, significant trees, either individually or in stands, should be preserved, replaced, or as a last option, relocated. Policy CD-20,: Development should be visually and acoustically buffered from ad- jacent freeways. Policy CD-21—_Development should have buildings oriented toward the street or a common area rather than toward parking lots. Policy CD-22: When appropriate, due to scale, use, or location, on-site open space and recreational facilities in developments should be required. Policy CD-23—_Developments should be designed so that public access to and use of parks,open space, or shorelines, is available where such access would not jeopardize the environmental attributes of the area. I Policy CD-24,: Site design of development should relate, connect, and continue design quality and site function from parcel to parcel. IV-8 ATTACHMENT B Policy CD-25—_Site design should address the effects of light, glare,noise, vegetation removal, and traffic in residential areas. Overall development densities l r"' may be reduced within the allowed density range to mitigate potential adverse impacts. IPolicy CD-26—_Streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian or bike paths should be arranged as an interconnecting network. The useDead-end streets and of-cul-de-sacs should be discouraged. A grid or"flexible grid"pattern of streets and pathways, with a hierarchy of widths and corresponding traffic volumes, should be used. Policy CD-27—_New streets should be designed to provide convenient access and a choice of routes between homes and parks, schools, shopping, and other community destinations. I Policy CD-28,: Non-residential development should have site plans that provide street access from a principal arterial, consolidate access points to existing streets, and have internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access. Policy CD-29.—_In mixed-use developments with ground-floor retail uses, residential parking areas should not conflict with pedestrian and vehicular access to the retail component of the project. I Policy CD-30.—_If transit service is available,parking requirements may be reduced or shared parking serving multiple developments may be allowed. I Policy CD-31,: In mixed-use developments, residential uses should be connected to other uses through design features such as pedestrian walkways and common open space. Noy I Policy CD-32—_Neighborhoods should have human-scale features, such as pedestrian pathways and public spaces(e.g. parks or plazas) that have discernible edges, entries and borders. B. Gateways Summary: Community identity can be effectively communicated at City and district/neighborhood entries through the designation of these areas as "gateways." Gateways are a means to call attention to the entrance and bid welcome to the City or a more specific geographic area . Objective CD-E: Highlight entrances to the City through the use of the "Gateways" designation. Implementing code for Objective CD-E and policies CD-33, 34, and 35 will be put in place within five (5) years from the date of adoption of the GMA update. Policy CD-33,: Identify primary and secondary gateways to the City and develop them as opportunities arise. Policy CD-34—_The level of development intensity at a gateway should be used, with location, to determine whether it is a primary or secondary gateway. I Policy CD-35—: Each gateway should have unique, identifiable design treatment in terms of landscaping, building design, signage, street furniture,paving, and street IV-9 ATTACHMENT B width. Special consideration of gateway function should be demonstrated through Idesign of these elements. C. Views and Focal Points Summary: Views are a resource that should be preserved for public access to the greatest extent possible. Focal points should be created and used to enhance the community. Objective CD-F: Protect and enhance public views of distinctive features from public streets and other focal points within the City and the surrounding area. Implementing code for Objective CD-F and Policies CD-36, CD-37, CD-38, CD-39 will be put in place within a five (5) year period from the date of adoption of the GMA update. Policy CD-36—_Scenic views and view corridors along roadways in the City should be identified and preserved through application of development standards. Policy CD-37—_Access from public roadways to views of features of distinction should be enhanced through the development of public viewpoints where appropriate. Policy CD-38—_Neighborhood identity should be established by featuring views, highlighting landmarks, or creating focal points of distinction. Policy CD-39—_Focal points should have a combination of public areas, such as parks or plazas; architectural features, such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops, or outdoor eating areas; and landscaped areas. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways. D. Architecture Summary: It is not the intent of these policies to dictate the architectural style of structures in the City of Renton. The Community Design architectural policies are intended to encourage design of structures that fit well into the neighborhood, reflect the physical character of Renton, mitigate potential negative impacts of development, and function well in meeting the needs of both the building occupant and the community. Objective CD-G: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community aesthetic. Policy CD-40—_Structures should be designed (e.g. building height, orientation, materials, color and bulk;) to mitigate potential adverse impacts, such as glare or shadows on adjacent less intense land uses and transportation corridors. Policy CD-41—_Rooftops that can be seen from higher elevations, taller buildings, and public streets, parks, or open space should be designed to hide mechanical equipment and to incorporate high-quality roofing materials. iv-b ATTACHMENT B I Policy CD-42—_Design characteristics in larger=new developments or individual building complexes should contribute to neighborhood and/or district identity. New Objective CD-H: Ensure that structures built in residential areas are consistent with the City's adopted land use vision and Purpose Statements for each Land Use Designation found in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Residential Policies. Objective CD-I: New commercial buildings should be architecturally compatible with their surroundings in terms of their bulk and scale, exterior materials, and color when existing development is consistent with the adopted land use vision and Purpose I Statements for each Commercial and Centers Designation in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Center and Commercial Policies. I Policy CD-41--: variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged and innovative use of building materials and finishes should be promoted. I Policy CD-44—_Development should provide appropriate landscaping and façade treatment when located along designated City arterials or adjacent to less intense developments in order to mitigate potentially adverse visual or other impacts. I E. Landscaping Summary: Landscaping is a key element of the City. It can be used to create distinctive character for developments,neighborhoods and along city streets; to frame r views; to block unsightly views; or mitigate the scale of large buildings. It can also be used to reduce traffic noise levels and the effects of pollution. I Objective CD-J-: The City of Renton should adopt a citywide landscape plan that furthers the aesthetic goal of the City and provides guidance for future development and infrastructure improvements. Implementing code for Objective CD-J and Policies CD-45, CD-46 and CD-48 will be put in place within a five(5) year period from the date of adoption of the GMA update. I Policy CD-45—_Existing mature vegetation and distinctive trees should be retained and protected in developments. I Policy CD-46.–_A comprehensive landscape architectural plan for the City should be developed. The plan should include recommendations for preferred street and landscape trees. I Policy CD-47—: Landscape plans should take into consideration the potential impact of mature vegetation on significant views so that future removal of view-blocking trees will not be necessary. I Policy CD-48—: A comprehensive landscape plan for the City should include areas such as those adjacent to freeways and major highways and other public rights-of-way. The installation of this landscaping should be encouraged. I Policy CD-49—_Citywide development standards, for landscape design, installation, and maintenance should be developed. IV-11 ATTACHMENT B Policy CD-50._Trees should be planted along residential streets, in parking lots requiring landscaping, and in other pervious areas as the opportunity arises. Trees should be retained whenever possible and maintained using Best Management svidie Practices as appropriate for each type. Policy CD-51—_Landscaping is encouraged, and may be required, in parking areas to improve their appearance and to increase drainage control. I Policy CD-52—`Landscape and surface water drainage plans should be coordinated to maximize percolation of surface water and minimize runoff from the site. Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses, including residential subdivisions, should include landscape plans. Policy CD-53—_Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater detention ponds, and all common areas. Policy CD-54–_Residential subdivisions and multi-family residential projects should include planting of street trees according to an adopted citywide landscape plan. Policy CD-55:-: Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in development projects, including entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater retention/detention ponds, and common areas. I Policy CD-56—_Surface water retention/detention ponds should be landscaped appropriately for the location of the facility. , .00001 F. Streets, Sidewalks, and Streetscape Objective CD-L: Promote development of attractive, walkable neighborhoods and shopping areas by ensuring that streets are safe, convenient, and pleasant for pedestrians. Policy CD-57—: The design of pedestrian- oriented environments should address safety as a first priority. Safety measures should include generous separation of cars and pedestrians, reducing the number of curb cuts and driveways,having numerous, well-marked street crossings and providing street and sidewalk lighting. Policy CD-58—_Aesthetic improvements along street frontages should be provided, especially for properties abutting major streets and boulevards. Incentives should be provided for the inclusion of streetscape amenities including: landscaping, public art, street furniture, paving, signs, and planting strips in developing and redeveloping areas. Objective CD-M: Develop a system of residential streets, sidewalks, and alleys that serve both vehicles and pedestrians. Policy CD-59—_A citywide street and sidewalk system should provide linkages within and between neighborhoods. Such system should not unduly increase pass- ,t' IV-12 ATTACHMENT B through traffic, but should create a continuous, efficient, interconnected network of 14410, roads and pathways throughout the City. I Policy CD-60—_Criteria should be developed to locate pedestrian and bicycle connections in the City. Criteria should consider: a) Linking residential areas with employment and commercial areas; b) Providing access along arterials; c) Providing access within residential areas; d) Filling gaps in the existing sidewalk system where appropriate; and e) Providing access through open spaces and building entries to shorten walking distances. Policy CD-61—_Residential streets should be constructed to the narrowest widths (distance from curb to curb) feasible without impeding emergency vehicle access. Policy CD-62—_Landscaped parking strips should be considered for use as a safety buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles along arterials and collector streets. Policy CD-63—_Intersections should be designed to minimize pedestrian crossing distance and increase safety for disabled pedestrians. Policy CD-64—_Evaluate existing intersections of arterial roadways for opportunities to create focal points, if such focal points do not reduce vehicular or pedestrian safety. Policy CD-65—_To visually improve the streetscape, increase the safety of perimeter sidewalks, and facilitate off-street parking, construction of alleys providing rear access Nagy to service entries and garages should be encouraged. Alleys are preferred in small-lot subdivisions to provide higher quality ' - . . .•'•:site .laimin that allows garage access from the rear and reduces curb cuts and building mass on narrow lots. Policy CD-66—_Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along residential streets. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic. Policy CD-67—_Street trees should be used to reinforce visual corridors along major boulevards and streets. Policy CD-68—_Street trees should be protected. If removal is necessary for municipal purposes such as infrastructure improvements or maintenance, trees should be replaced with equivalent-the same size and varietytype. Upon adoption of citywide standards, street trees should be upgraded consistent with those standards. Policy CD-69—_Appearance of parking lots should be improved by screening through appropriate combinations of landscaping, fencing, and berms. Policy CD-70—_Structural supports for overhead traffic signals should be designed to diminish visual impacts. Policy CD-71—_All utility lines should be placed underground. G. Signage Nay IV-13 ATTACHMENT B Objective CD-N: Commercial signs in Renton should be regulated by citywide standards. Policy CD-72=_Sign regulations should direct the type, size,design, and placement of signs in order to ensure reasonable aesthetic and safety considerations. Policy CD-73—: Billboards with moving part that are out of scale with surrounding buildings and uses,should be eliminatedremoved. Policy CD-74—_All bulky and unusually large or tall signs should be eliminated. Policy CD-75—_Sign placement should be limited to on-site locations. Policy CD-76—_Signs should be regulated as an integral part of architectural design. In general, signs should be compatible with the rest of the building and site design. Policy CD-77–_Consolidate information for mixed-use development to reduce the number of signs. Policy CD-78—_Locate signage to reduce light and glare impacts to residential areas. Policy CD-79—LInterpretive and directional signs for major landmarks, neighborhoods, and viewpoints should be established to enhance community identity. H. Lighting Objective CD-O: Lighting systems in public rights-of-way should be provided to improve safety, aid in direction finding, and provide information for commercial and other business purposes. Excess lighting beyond what is necessary should be avoided. Policy CD-80—: All exterior lighting should be focused and directed away from adjacent properties and wildlife habitat to prevent spill-emsspillover or glare. Policy CD-81—_Lighting should be used as one means to improve the visual identification of residences and businesses. Policy CD-82—_Lighting fixtures should be attractively designed to complement the architecture of a development,the site, and adjacent buildings. Policy CD-83. Lighting within commercial and public areas should be located and designed to enhance security and encourage nighttime use by pedestrians. I. Urban Center Note: Community Design policies specifically applicable to the Urban Center are located in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. IV-14 . ATTACHMENT C . ATTACHMENT 'C' ilarti 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. 13. • ePromote annexationsannexation where and when it is in the best interest of Renton. 4. Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. 5. Pursue the transition of non-conforming uses and structures to encourage more conforming uses and development patterns. 6. Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi-public service needs of present and future employees. I 87. Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: a) Contribute to-a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; b) Are walkable places where people can live, shop, play, and get to work without always having to drive; c) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; d) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; e) Are varied or unique in character; f) Support"grid"and"flexible grid"street and pathway patterns where appropriate; g) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; h) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and i) Provide a sense of home. I 18. Develop well-balanced attractive,convenient,robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. Page 1 of 76 ATTACHMENT C I 189. 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 '4041) boulevards and in designated development areas. 1-MO 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. Nom) Page 2 of 76 . 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 Iand capacity as determined through implementation of the Growth Management Act. Discussion: "Capacity"is the room for growth provided by the plan. Targets are the politically determined share of growth assigned to each community in the region through the Countywide Planning Policies. Forecasts are the expected growth in the City based on regional employment and population modeling. The objective of this plan is to appropriately analyze regionally generated estimates of both forecast growth and targets and align those estimates with Renton's desire for economic growth and development. Renton has the local land use authority to provide sufficient capacity to meet and exceed both targets and forecast growth. Excess capacity can encourage-result in sprawl and discourage redevelopment of inefficient or out-dated land uses, while insufficient capacity can make itdevelopment more-difficult ue to high land cost. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan should provide sufficient direction to achieve a balance between excessive and insufficient capacity, in order to avoid difficulty in implementing the Plan. Responsibility for implementing the objectives and policies of the Regional Growth section of this plan lies primarily with the City of Renton. lkiiiir.i Objective LU-A: Plan for future urban development in the Renton Urban Growth Area (UGA) including the existing City and the unincorporated areas identified in Renton's Potential Annexation Areas(PAA). Policy LU-1. Continue to refine the boundary of the Urban Growth Area(UGA) in cooperation with-King-County, based on the following criteria: - - - 1) The UGA provides adequate land capacity for forecast growth; 2) Lands within the UGA are appropriate for urban development; and 3) Urban levels of service are required for existing and proposed land uses. Policy LU-2. Designate Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) as those portions of unincorporated King County outside the existing City limits, but within the Urban Growth Area, where: 1) Renton can logically provide urban services over the planning period; 2) Land use patterns support implementation of Renton's Urban Center objectives; and 3) Development meets overall standards for quality identified for city neighborhoods. Policy LU-3. Provide for land use planning and an overall growth strategy for both the City and land in the designated PAA as part of Renton's regional growth policies. Page 3 of 76 ATTACHMENT C Discussion: The Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies establigh urban growth areas where urban levels of growth will occur within the '4148) subsequent 21-year period. These areas include existing cities and unincorporated areas. Within the Urban Growth Area, the Potential Annexation Area(PAA)is designated for future municipal expansion and governance. Policies guiding annexation and provision of services within the PAA are also located in the annexation portion of the Land Use Element; Utilities Element; Parks, Recreation,Open Space and Trails Element and Transportation Element. Objective LU-B: Evaluate and implement growth targets consistent with the Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies. Policy LU-4. Adopt the following growth targets for the period from 2001 to 2022, consistent with the targets adopted for the region by the Growth Management Planning Council for the 2002 Renton City limits and Potential Annexation Areas: 1) City of Renton Housing: 6,198 units 2) City of Renton Jobs: 27,597 jobs 3) Potential Annexation Area Housing 1,976 units 4) Potential Annexation Area Jobs: 458 jobs Policy LU-5. Amend growth targets as annexation occurs to transfer a proportionate share of Potential Annexation Area targets into Renton's targets. I ' . . - - . . _ _ • ' e. ... - ., . _ - . ... •. . .._ . 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. Page 4 of 76 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-11. Minimum density requirements shall be established to ensure that land Noe development practices result in an average development density in each land use designation sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and create greater efficiency in the provision of urban services. Policy LU-12. Minimum density requirements should: 1) Be based on net densityland area; 2) Be required in residential zones,with the exception of the Resource Conservation, Residential 1, and Residential 4 zones, .. _ 3) Not be required of individual portions or lots within t uroject; 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. latal 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 Rgnton's planning area I should meet the goal of 2-two jobs perfor each 4-housing unit. Policy LU-17. Sufficient quantities of land should be designated to accommodate the desired single family/multi-family mix outside the Urban Center, and provide for . commercial and industrial uses necessary to provide for expected job growth. Policy LU-18. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the design, size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with residential uses. Discussion: The ratio of new jobs to new housing units will affect the future character of the City. Renton currently is an employment center with a high jobs/housing ratio characterized by a high level of day-timedaytime activity, a high demand for infrastructure, a high tax base, and a high level-volume of commuter traffic. /441604 Page 5 of 76 ATTACHMENT C Renton's current ratio of jobs to housj g units is roughly 2.1 jobs per 1 housing unit. Within King County,the overall ratio is about 1.5 jobs per 1 housing unit. Forecasts from the Puget Sound Regional Council indicate that there will be an even greater number of new jobs within Renton than new housing over the next 20 years. This will increase the discrepancy between jobs and housing units within the City. However, the number of housing units in the unincorporated areas within Renton's Potential Annexation Area are-is expected to grow faster than jobs so that the balance of jobs to housing will be maintained within the City limits and the Potential Annexation Areas. 1%) Page 6of76 ATTACHMENT C II. AIRPQRT 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. Page 7of76 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. I 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 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. Page 8 of 76 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. Slime Page 9 of 76 . ATTACHMENT C . III. ANNEXATIONS Goal: Actively pursue annexations. *41) Discussion: The growth of the City through annexation is expected to continue throughout the planning cycle. The policies in this section are intended to guide the annexation process. The City recognizes that fiscal impacts are-is only one of many criteria to be evaluated, and must be balanced with other annexation policy goals, such as transition to urban land use,protection of sensitive areas,provision of public service, governmental structure,provision of infrastructure, aquifer protection, and community identity. Responsibility for implementing annexation objectives and the policies lies primarily with the City of Renton. Objective LU-I: Support annexation of county areas that are identified as being within the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area and can be efficiently provided with infrastructure and City services, are urban separators, or have environmental constraints. Policy LU-35. The City will continue to recognize that it has an inherent interest in future land use decisions affecting its Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-36. Encourage annexation where the availability of infrastructure and services allow for the development of urban densities. Renton should be the primary service provider of urban infrastructure and public services in its Potential Annexation Area,provided that the City can offer such services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Policy LU-37. The highest priority areas for annexation to the City of Renton should be those contiguous with the boundaries of the City such as: 1) Peninsulas and islands of unincorporated land where Renton is the logical service provider; - - - - - - 2) Neighborhoods where municipal services have already been extended; 3) Lands subject to development pressure that might benefit from City Development Standards; 4) Developed areas where urban services are needed to correct degradation of natural resources,such as aquifer recharge areas; 5) Lands that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive plan,zoning, and subdivision regulations; and 6) Developed areas where Renton is able to provide basic urban services and local governance to an existing population. Objective LU-J: Promote annexations that would maintain the quality of life in the re- sultant City of Renton,making the City a good place to-week, 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 i Page 10 of 76 ATTACHMENT C sewer, storm water drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation,park and open space, library, and public safety. Policy LU-39. Support annexations that complement the jobs and housing goals adopted in the Regional Growth Strategy. Policy LU-40. Support annexations that would simplify governmental structure by consolidating multiple services under a single or reduced number of service providers. Policy LU-41. Promote annexations of developed areas with a residential population already using City services or impacting City infrastructure. Policy LU-42. Support annexations of lower density areas where it would protect natural resources or provide urban separator areas. Objective LU-K: Create city boundaries through annexations that facilitate the efficient delivery of emergency and public services. Policy LU-43. The proposed annexation boundary should be defined by the following characteristics: 1) Annexation of territory that is adjacent to the existing City limits; in general,the more land adjacent to the City the more favorable the annexation; 2) Inclusion of unincorporated islands and peninsulas; 3) Use of natural or manmade boundaries that are readily identifiable in the field, such as wetlands, waterways, ridges,park property,roads/freeways, and railroads; 4) Inclusion/exclusion of an entire neighborhood,rather than dividing portions of the neighborhood between City and County jurisdictions; and 5) Inclusion of natural corridors either as greenbelts or urban separators between the City and adjacent jurisdictions. IPolicy LU-44. Existing land uses,-and development, and-or redevelopment potential should be considered when evaluating a proposed annexation. Policy LU-45. Commercial uses that do not conform to Renton's land use plan should be encouraged to transition into conforming uses or to relocate to areas with compatible land use designations. Illegal uses not listed under King County zoning should be required to cease and desist upon annexation. Policy LU-46. Annexation proposals should include areas that would result in City control over land uses along major entrance corridors to the City("Gateways"). Policy LU-47. Boundaries of individual annexations will not be reconsidered to exclude reluctant property owners, if the annexation is consistent with land use, environmental protection policies, and the efficient delivery of services. Page 11 of 76 ATTACHMENT C Objective LU-L: Protect the environmental quality of Renton by annexing lands where future development and land use activity could otherwise adversely impact natural and urban systems. Policy LU-48. Shoreline Master Program land use designations, including those for associated wetlands, should be established during the annexation process. Policy LU-49. Annexations should be pursued in areas that lie within existing,emerging, or prospective aquifer recharge zones, that currently or potentially supply domestic water to the City and are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-50. Zoning should be applied to areas for purposes of resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation process. Objective LU-M: Promote a regional approach for development review through the use of interlocal agreements to ensure that land development policies in King County are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies or otherand City of Renton development standards. This policy should be implemented within five years of the adoption date of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-51. Urban development within Renton's Potential Annexation Area should not occur without annexation unless there is an interlocal agreement with King County defining land use, zoning, annexation phasing,urban services, street and other design standards, and impact mitigation requirements. Policy LU-52. Long-range planning and the development of capital improvement programs for transportation, storm water,water, and sewer services should be coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions, special districts, and King County. Policy LU-53. Interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions should be pursued to develop solutions to regional concerns including, but not limited to water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage,utility drainage basins, transportation,park and open space, development review, and public safety. Objective LU-N: Provide full and complete evaluation of annexation proposals by relevant departments and divisions upon the submission of the annexation proposal. Policy LU-54. Appropriate zoning districts should be designated for property in an annexation proposal. Zoning in the annexation territory should be consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designations. Policy LU-55. Larger annexations should be encouraged,when appropriate, in order to realize efficiencies in the use of City resources. Policy LU-56. Annexations should be expanded if they include areas surrounded by the City on three or more sides or if they include properties with recorded covenants to annex. Page 12 of 76 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-57. The City should respond to community initiatives and actively assist /411111.1 owners and residents with initiating and completing the annexation process. Policy LU-58. The City should ensure that property owners and residents in and around the affected area(s) are notified of the obligations and requirements that may be imposed upon them as a result of annexation. Policy LU-59. The City should work with potential annexation proponents to develop acceptable annexation boundaries. Policy LU-60. The City should conduct a fiscal impact assessment of the costs to provide service and of the tax revenues that would be generated in each area proposed for annexation. Page 13 of 76 . ATTACHMENT C . IV. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Goal: Maintain the City's natural-and-cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. Discussion: Renton has a rich and interesting history as a community. It was the site of an established Native American settlement and changed through the years of early European immigration into a pioneer town. The City incorporated in 1901 and later became a major regional employment center and residential area. The following policies are intended to guide efforts to recognize and integrate Renton's past into future development as the City evolves into a dynamic urban community. Objective LU-O: Communicate Renton's history by protecting historic and archaeological sites and structures when appropriate and as opportunities arise. Policy LU-61. Historic resources should continue to be identified and mapped within the City as an on-going process. I Policy LU-62. N d Ceultural resources should be identified by project proponents when applying for land use approval, as part of the application submitted for review. Policy LU-63. Potentially adverse impacts on cultural resources deemed to be significant should be mitigated as a condition of project approval. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-64. The City should work cooperatively with King County by exchanging _ resource information pertaining to natural and cultural resources. Policy LU-65. Historical and archaeological sites, identified as significant by the City of Renton, should be preserved and/or incorporated into development projects. Policy LU-66. Downtown buildings and site development proposals should be encouraged to incorporate displays about Renton's history, including prominent families and individuals, businesses, and events associated with downtown's past. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Page 14 of 76 . 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. Responsibilityfor implementing the objectives and policies of this section lies primarily with the City of Renton. Objective LU-P: Evaluate requests for rebuilding of non-conforming uses beyond normal maintenance where they can be made more conforming and are compatible with their surroundings. Policy LU-67. Encourage compatibility between non-conforming uses and structures and conforming uses in neighborhoods that have significant numbers of non-conforming uses. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-68. Encourage developments that increase the number of conforming uses ' llail and structures. Policy LU-69. Transition of uses and structures from non-conforming to those that conform to zoning and development standards should be implemented in a manner that recognizes the overall character of the neighborhood. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. - - - Illise Page 15 of 76 . ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-70. Evaluate permits for non-conforming uses,based on the following criteria: 1) Relationship of the existing non-conforming use or structure to its surroundings; 2) The compatibility of the non-conforming use with its context and other uses in the area; 3) Demonstrated community need for the use at its present location; I 4) Over cConcentration of the use within the City or within the area; 5) Suitability of the existing location; 6) Demonstration that the use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc., (i.e. does not exceed normal levels in these areas emanating from surrounding permitted uses); 7) Whether the use was associated with a historical event or activity in the community and as a result has historical significance; 8) Whether the use provides substantial benefit to the community because of either the employment of a large number of people in the community or whether it generates considerable revenues to the City;and 9) Whether retention of the use due to current market conditions would not impede or delay the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Objective LU-Q: Ensure that the effects of non-conforming structures on character of the conforming patterns of Renton's neighborhoods are minimized. Policy LU-71. Evaluate applications to repair or expand non-conforming structures based on the following factors: '41111) Whether it represents a unique regional or national architectural style or an innovation in architecture, use of materials, or functional arrangement, and/or is one of the few remaining examples of such a style or innovation, 2 Whether it is part of a unified streetscape of similar structures that is unlikely to be replicated, unless the subject structure is rebuilt per, or similar to, its original plan; 3) Whether redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely; and 4) The structure has been well-maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety, or it could be retrofitted so as not to pose such a threat. Page 16 of 76 • ATTACHMENT C . VI. PUBLIC FACILITIES 411160, 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 ` ,,,,r 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. Page 17 of 76 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. ftiod Policy LU-81. Public amenity features (e.g. plazas, trails, art work)should be incorporated into municipal projects. Policy LU-82. Municipal government functions that are people-intensive should be centrally located in or near the Urban Center. Policy LU-83. Fire stations should be located on principal or minor arterials. Policy LU-84. Future fire stations should be sited central to their service area with as few barriers as possible in order to achieve best possible response times. Policy LU-85. Land for future fire stations should be acquired in advance in areas where the greatest amount of development is anticipated. Policy LU-86. Site and building design of police facilities providing direct service to the general public should be easily accessible. Policy LU-87. Major functions of the police should be centralized in or near the Urban Center. Policy LU-88. Satellite police facilities may be located outside of the Urban Center. Objective LU-T: Site and design regional facilities to provide the most efficient and convenient service for people while minimizing the adverse impacts on adjacent uses and the City Urban Center. _ Policy LU-89. Regional facilities that provide services on-site to the public on a daily basis (i.e. office uses) should be located in the City's Urban Center. Policy LU-90. Siting of regional facilities that are specialized(e.g. landfills, maintenance shops) or serve a limited segment of the population(e.g.justice centers) should rely more strongly on the special locational needs of the facility and the compatibility of the facility with surrounding uses. Objective LU-U: Preserve the cultural amenities and heritage of Renton. Policy LU-91. The downtown library should continue to be the main facility for the City. Policy LU-92. When branch libraries are developed, they should be located to provide convenient access to a majority of their users. Page 18 of 76 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. itme 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-W: Assure that adequate land and infrastructure are available for the development and expansion of facilities to serve the health care needs of the area. Policy LU-103. Health and/or medical facilities larger than five acres should be located in portions of the Commercial Corridor designation mapped with Commercial Office zoning, Employment Area—Valley, Commercial/Office/Residential or the Urban Centers designations. Smaller scale facilities should locate in the Commercial Arterial portions of Commercial Corridor. Objective LU-X: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner that provides convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Page 19 of 76 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. 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 larg;commercial recreationrecreational uses that depends on open land and is-are intended to serve regional users within 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 Iof 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. Page 20 of 76 . ATTACHMENT C itirel 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. ittiol 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 Page 21 of 76 ATTACHMENT C upon annexation to the City. Policies governing these sites should be consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan. Policy LU-118. Mining and processing of minerals and materials should be allowed within the City subject to applicable City ordinances, environmental performance standards. I Policy LU-119. Extractive sites,when mined out, should be regraded and restored for future development compatible with land use designations for adjacent sites. Implementing code will be in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-120. New plats adjacent to operating extractive sites should carry a notice on the face of the plat specifying the impacts that are expected from the extractive use: potential dust, noise, traffic, light and glare. Policy LU-121. Hours of operation of extractive uses should be based on impacts to adjacent uses. Policy LU-122. The City should apply conditional use permits or other approvals as appropriate for mineral extraction and processing when: 1) The proposed site contains rock, sand, gravel, coal, oil, gas, or other mineral resources, 2) The proposed site is large enough to confine or mitigate all operational impacts, 3) The proposal will allow operation with limited conflicts with adjacent land uses when mitigating measures are applied, and; 4) Roads or rail facilities serving or proposed to serve the site can safely and adequately handle transport of products and are in close proximity to the site. No) Page 22 of 76 . ATTACHMENT C VIII. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES Goal: Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: j) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; k) Are walkable places where people can shop,play, and get to work without always having to drive; 1) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; m) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; n) Are varied or unique in character; o) Support"grid"and "flexible grid"street and pathway patterns where appropriate; p) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; q) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and r) Provide a sense of home. Discussion: The purpose of the Residential policies is to provide a Citywidecitywide residential growth strategy. The Residential policies address the location of housing development, housing densities, non-residential uses allowed in residential areas, site *416r ' design, and housing types in neighborhoods. (See Public Facilities Section for policies on schools, churches, and other facilities in residential areas. See Housing Element for policies relating to housing types and neighborhoods and the Community Design Element for policies guiding quality design.) Responsibility for residential objectives and policies lies with the City of Renton for implementation and the development community, which should propose projects that meet the residential goals, objectives, and policies of the City. Objective LU-BB: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton and the Potential Annexation Area that: 1) Supports transit by providing urban densities, 2) Promotes efficient land utilization, and 3) Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features. Policy LU-123. Pursue multiple strategies for residential growth including: 1) Development of new neighborhoods on larger land tracts on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown; 2) Infill development on vacant and underutilized parcels in Renton's established neighborhoods; 3) Multi-family development located in Renton's Urban Center; Page 23 of 76 i 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. I Policy LU-125. Encourage a city-widecitywide mix of housing types including: 1) Large-lot single family; 2) Small-lot single family; 3) Small-scale and large-scale rental and condominium multi-family housing; and 4) Residential/commercial mixed-use development. Objective LU-CC: Maintain the goal of a fifty-fifty ratio of single family to multi- family housing outside of the Urban Center. Policy LU-126. A maximum of fifty percent(50%)of future residential land capacity should occur in multi-family housing in parts of the City and PAA located outside of the Urban Center. Policy LU-127. Infrastructure impacts of the goal of 50/50 ratio of single-family to multi-family outside the Urban Center should be evaluated as part of the City's Capital Improvements program. Policy LU-128. Multi-family unit types are encouraged as part of mixed-use developments in the Urban Center, Center Village, Commercial/Office/Residential, and the Commercial Corridor Land Use designations. _ Policy LU-129. Small-lot, single-family infill developments and plats should be supported as alternatives to multi-family development to both increase the City's supply of single-family detached housing and provide homeownership opportunities. Policy LU-130. Adopt urban density of at least four(4)dwelling units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. Policy LU-131. Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Policy LU-132. Discourage creation of socio-economic enclaves, especially where lower income units would be segregated within a development. Page 24 of 76 ATTACHMENT C iiiiiiii RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Policies in this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. Lands that are not appropriate for urban levels of development are designated either Resource Conservation or Residential Low Density, with Resource Conservation or Residential 1 zoning-Zoning. Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance, are zoned Residential 4. Responsibility for residential objectives and policies lies with the City of Renton for implementation and the development community, which should propose projects that meet the residential goals, objectives, and policies of the City. I Objective LU-DD: Provide opportunities for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features,providing urban separators likaol and/or providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County. Policy LU-133. Identify and map areas of the City where environmentally sensitive areas such as 100-year floodplains, floodways, and hazaus-landslide and erosion areas are extensive and the application of critical areas regulations alone is insufficient to guide future development. _ _ Policy LU-134. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres (Resource Conservation)to 1 home per acre(Residential 1)on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre (Residential 4)on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate. Policy LU-135. For the purpose of mapping four dwelling units per net acre(4-du/ac) zoned areas as contrasted with lower density Residential 1 (R-1) and Resource Conservation(RC)areas, the prevalence of significant environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean: 1) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area; 2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist; 3) The location of the sensitive area results in a non-contiguous development pattern; Page 25 of 76 ATTACHMENT C 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. Iallowed, 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. I Implementation of this policy should be phased in within two-three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. 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 I considered for designation of conservation easements,trail easements or other public benefits through agreements with private parties. Objective LU-EE: Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings. Policy LU-143. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Policy LU-144. Ensure quality development by supporting site plans and plats that incorporate quality building and landscaping standards. Page 26 of 76 ATTACHMENT C 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 I 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; 1 2) Landscaping,preferably with drought-resistant evergreen plant materials; 3) Large caliper street trees; 4) Irrigated landscape planting strips; 5) Low-impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious surfaces for surface water runoff; and 6) Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Lands in thedesignated Residential Single Family Decignatien-areis intended to be used for quality residential-detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development,and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family living environments. Policies in this section are to be considered together with the policies in the Regional Growth, Residential Growth Strategy section of the Land Use Element, the Community Design Element, and the Housing Element. Policies are implemented with R-8 zoning. Objective LU-FF: Encourage re-investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that: 1) Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets, 2) Promote expansion and use of public transportation; and 3) Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per net acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy LU-148. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in-fill parcels of less than one acre(43,560 sq. ft.)in single-family designations. Allow a reduction in lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than one acre to create an Page 27 of 76 ATTACHMENT C incentive for aggregation of land. The minimum lot size is not intended to set the standard for density in the designation, but to provide flexibility in subdivision/plat design and facilitate development within the allowed density range. Policy LU-149. Lot size should exclude private sidewalks, easements,private road, and driveway easements,except alley easements. Policy LU-150. Required setbacks should exclude public or private legal access areas, established through or to a lot, and to parking areas. Policy LU-151. Maximum height of structures should not exceed two (2) stories in single-family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-152. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities. Policy LU-152.1: Variances to standards in LU-152 should not be granted to facilitate additional density on an infill site. Policy LU-153. Interpret development standards to support plats designed to incorporate vehicular and pedestrian connections between plats and neighborhoods. Small projects composed of single parcels and/or multiple parcels of insufficient size to provide such connections, should include future street stubs. Future street connections should be clearly identified to notify residents of future roadway connections. Policy LU-154. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs incorporating street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes that _ .address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Policy LU-155. New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts between old and new development patterns. However, strict adherence to older standards is not required. Policy LU-156. Interpret development standards to support projects incorporating site features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes that can be retained to enhance neighborhood character and preserve property values where possible. Replanting should occur where trees are not retained due to safety concerns. Retention of unique site features should be balanced with the objective of investing in neighborhoods within the overall context of the Vision Statement of this Comprehensive Plan. RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Page 28 of 76 • ATTACHMENT C Purpose Statement: The Residential Medium Density designation is intended to create the opportunity for neighborhoods that offer a variety of lot sizes, housing, and ownership options. Residential Medium Density neighborhoods should include a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single-family and multi-family developments, support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill development, encourage use of transit service, and promote the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Objective LU-GG: Designate land for Residential Medium Density(RMD)where access, topography and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single-family and multi-family developments, and to support cost-efficient housing, infill development, transit service, and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-157. Residential Medium Density designated areas should be zoned for either Residential 10 dwelling units per net acre(R-10),Residential 14 dwelling units per net acre(R-14), or new zoning designations that allow housing in this density range. Policy LU-158. Residential Medium Density neighborhoods may be considered for Residential 10(R-10)zoning if they meet three of the following criteria: 1) The area already has a mix of small-scale multi-family units or has had long standing tiase 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 % 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)Zonirig_4_21Lng where the site meets the following criteria: 1) Adjacent to major arterial(s); I 2) Adjacent to the Urban Center, Highlands Neighbor-hoed-Center Village, or Commercial Corridor designations; 3) Part of a designation totaling over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownership); 4) Site is buffered from single-family areas or other existing,potentially incompatible uses; and 5) Development within the density range and of similar unit type is achievable given environmental constraints. Page 29 of 76 ATTACHMENT C 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. Nor) 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 I of the Residential Medium Density designation, a bonus density of 1-8-four(4) additional dwelling units per acre should be available, subject to Density Bonus Review and other applicable development conditions. Policy LU-164. When a minimum density is applicable,the minimum development density in the Residential Medium Density designation should be four(4) dwelling units per net acre. Objective LU-HH: Residential Medium Density designations should be areas where creative approaches to housing density can be implemented. Policy LU-165. Provision of small lot, single-family detached unit types, townhouses, and multi-family structures compatible with a single-family character should be allowed and encouraged in the Residential Medium Density designation,provided that density standards can be met(see also the Housing Element for housing types). I Policy LU-166. Very small-lots single-family housing,such as cottages, zero-lot line detached, semi-detached, townhouses,and small scale multi-family units should be allowed in the Residential Medium Density designation in order to provide a wide range of housing types. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-167. A range and variety of lot sizes and building densities should be encouraged. Policy LU-168. Residential developments should include public amenities that function as a gathering place within the development and should include features such as a public square, open space,park, civic or commercial uses in the R-14 zone. The central place should include passive-amenities for passive recreation such as benches and fountains; and be unified by a design motif or common theme. Policy LU-169. Residential Medium Density site development plans having attached or semi-attached housing types should reflect the following criteria for projects: Now) Page 30 of 76 ATTACHMENT C 1) Parking should be encouraged in the rear or side yards or under the structure; 2) Structures should be located on lots or arranged in a manner to appear like a platted development to ensure adequate light and air, and views(if any) are preserved between lots or structures; 3) Buildings should be massed in a manner that promotes a pedestrian scale with a small neighborhood feeling; 4) Each dwelling unit should have an identifiable entrance and front on streets rather than courtyards and parking lots; 5) Fences may be constructed if they contribute to an open, spacious feeling between units and structures; and 6) Streetscapes should include green, open space for each unit. Policy LU-170. Residential Medium Density development should provide condominium or fee simple homeownership opportunities, as well as rental or lease options. Objective LU-II: Residential Medium Density development should be urban in form and fit into existing residential neighborhoods if developed as infill projects. Policy LU-171. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. Policy LU-172. Non-residential structures, such as community recreation buildings, that are part of the development,may have dimensions larger than residential structures,but should be compatible in design and dimensions with surrounding residential development. Policy LU-173. Non-residential structures should be clustered and connected within the overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, focal points, and amenity features to create a neighborhood. Policy LU-174. Single-family detached building types in the Residential Medium Density designation should have a.-maximum lot coverage by the primary structure of fifty(50)percent. Policy LU-175. In the Residential Medium Density designation common open space equal to 1,200-square feet per unit and maintained by a homeowners' association, should be provided for each semi-attached or attached unit. Policy LU-176. Support site plans that transition to and blend with existing development patterns using techniques such as lot size, depth and width, access points, building location setbacks, and landscaping. Sensitivity to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods should be reflected in site plan design. Interpret development standards to support ground-related orientation, coordinated structural design, and private yards or substantial common space areas. Policy LU-177. A minimum of fifty(50)percent of a project in the Residential 14 zone should consist of the following primary residential types: traditional detached, zero lot rnsol Page 31 of 76 ATTACHMENT C line detached, or townhouses with individual yards that are scaled appropriately for each unit. "ter) 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 I 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. Page 32 of 76 ATTACHMENT C Polite 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. Sloe 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; Page 33 of 76 ATTACHMENT C . 2) Taller buildings(greater than two stories)should have larger side yard setback dimensions; and 3) Heights of buildings should be limited to three stories and thirty-five (35) feet, unless greater heights can be demonstrated to be compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Objective LU-LL: New Residential Multi-family projects should demonstrate provision of an environment that contributes to a high quality of life for future residents,regardless of income level. Implementing code will be put in place within two years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-189. Support project design that incorporates the following,or similar elements, in architectural design: 1) Variation of facades on all sides of structures visible from the street with vertical and horizontal modulation or articulation; 2) Angular roof lines on multiple planes and with roof edge articulation such as modulated cornices; 3) Private entries from the public sidewalk fronting the building for ground floor units; 4) Ground floor units elevated from sidewalk level; 5) Upper-level access interior to the building; 6) Balconies that serve as functional open space for individual units; and 7) Common entryways with canopy or similar feature. Policy LU-190. Support project site planning that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in order to meet the intent of the objective: 1) Buildings oriented toward public streets, 2) Private open space for ground-related units, 3) Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful, _ 4) Preferably underground parking or structured parking located under the residential building, 5) Surface parking, if necessary, to be located to the side or rear of the residential building(s), 6) Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property, and 7) Landscaping, consisting of groundcover and street trees(at a minimum), of all setbacks and rights-of way abutting the property. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-191. Residential Multi-family projects in the RMF zone should have a maximum site coverage by buildings of thirty-five(35)percent,or forty-five(45)percent if greater coverage can be demonstrated to be both mitigated on site with amenities and compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Policy LU-192. Residential Multi-family projects should have maximum site coverage by impervious materials of seventy-five(75)percent. '4111) Page 34of76 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 Iemployment area north to Lake Washington. The Urban Center includes two sub-areas: Urban Center-Downtown (220 acres)and the Urban Center-North(310 acres). Together these two areas are envisioned to evolve into a vibrant city core that provides arts, entertainment,regional employment opportunities, recreation, and quality urban residential neighborhoods. The Renton Urban Center is envisioned as the dynamic heart of a growing regional city. Renton's Urban Center will provide significant capacity for new housing in order to absorb the city's share of future regional growth. This residential population will help to balance the City's employment population and thereby meet the policy directive of a 2:1 ratio of jobs to housing. The Center Village designation is envisioned as a revitalized residential and commercial area providing goods and services to the Greater Highlands area. The area could potentially become a focal point for a larger area, the Coal Creek Corridor, connecting Renton to Newcastle to-and Issaquah. While development is envisioned at a smaller scale than expected in the Urban Center, the Village Center will still focus on urban khare I mixed-use projects with a pedespedestrian-oriented development pattern. Objective LU-MM: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a viable district. Policy LU-193. Promote the innovative site planning and clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-194. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives. Policy LU-195. Designate Center boundaries according to the following criteria: 1) The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity; 2) Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills, and significant stands of trees; 3) Boundaries should occur along public rights-of-way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern. Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels; and 4) As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within a walkable distance from one or two focal points, which may be defined by intersections, transit stops,or „r shopping centers. Page 35 of 76 ATTACHMENT C Policy LU-196. Designate Centers in locations with the following characteristics: *0110 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 I 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. 'Nom) 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. Page 36 of 76 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 7) Evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. Policy LU-212. Establish two sub-areas within Renton's Urban Center. 1) Urban Center-Downtown (UC-D) is Renton's historic commercial district, - - surrounded by established residential neighborhoods. The UC-D is located from the • - Cedar River south to South 7th Street and between I-405 on the east and Shattuck Avenue South on the west. 2) Urban Center—North (UC-N) is the area that includes Southport, the Puget Sound Energy sub-station, and the South Lake Washington redevelopment area. The UC-N is located generally from Lake Washington on the north, the Cedar River and Renton Municipal Airport to the west, Sixth Street and Renton Stadium to the south, and Houser Way to the east. Policy LU-213. Maintain zoning that creates capacity for employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the Urban Center. Policy LU-214: Support developments that utilize Urban Center levels of capacity. Where market conditions do not support Urban Center employment and residential levels, support site planning and/or phasing alternatives that demonstrate how, over time, infill or redevelopment can meet Urban Center objectives. Policy LU-215. Site and building design should be pedestrian/people oriented with provisions for transit and automobiles where appropriate. Page 37 of 76 - i ATTACHMENT C URBAN CENTER DOWNTOWN LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The Urban Center-Downtown(UC-D) is expected to redevelop as 'Nu) 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. I Policy LU-219. Projects in the-Urban Center-Downtown should achieve an urban density and intensity of development that is greater than typical suburban neighborhoods. Characteristics of urban intensity include no or little setbacks, taller structures,mixed- uses, structured parking, and-urban plazas and amenities within buildings. Policy LU-220. Non-conforming uses should transition to conforming uses. Non- conforming structures should be re-used to house conforming uses unless the size and scale of the structure significantly limits the intensity and quality of development that can be achieved. Policy LU-221. Development should not exceed mid-rise heights (maximum10 stories) within the Urban Center-Downtown. Objective LU-PP: Encourage the evolution of downtown Renton as a regional commercial district that complements the redevelopment expected to occur in the Urban Center-North. Page 38 of 76 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 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 I 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 maybe 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 Page 39of76 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 better-managed to encourage joint use rather than parking for each individual business. Policy LU-237. Downtown parking standards should recognize the different demands and requirements of both local and regional commercial parking versus those of office and residential uses. Policy LU-238. Alternatives to individual on-site parking that encourage efficient use of urban land(e.g. fees in lieu of parking,multiple-use or shared parking leased off-site parking, car-sharing)should be encouraged. Policy LU-239. Parking standards and requests for parking modifications for downtown residents should reflect the market demand of urban residential uses, taking into account transit service availability, car-sharing availability, and other transportation demand management tools available. I Policy LU-240. In order to maximize on streeton street parking availability in the downtown, loading and delivery areas for downtown uses should be consolidated and limited to alleys, other off-street areas,or city-designated on-street loading zones. Alley and off-street loading and delivery areas should be screened from view of the street. Policy LU-241. Alleys should be maintained in the Urban Center- Downtown in order to facilitate use of alley-accessed parking areas, freight delivery, and removal of refuse and recyclables. Objective LU-TT: Develop a transit circulation/distribution system that provides convenient connections between downtown and residential, employment, and other commercial areas within the Renton planning area. Page 40 of 76 s 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. Permanent park and ride facilities in the Urban Center-Downtown should use structured parking garages and support the Transit Center. Policy LU-246. Continue development of transit-oriented development in the activity node established by the downtown transit facility. Policy LU-247. Seek ways of improving speed and reliability of transit serving Renton's Downtown. Policy LU-248. Transit span of service should increase as Downtown Renton adds evening entertainment, dining, and recreation opportunities. Objective LU-UU: Improve the City's pedestrian and bicycle network to increase access to and circulation within the Urban Center-Downtown. Policy LU-249. Pedestrian spaces should be emphasized and connected throughout the downtown. Policy LU-250. Pedestrians should be given priority use of sidewalks within the Urban Center-Downtown designated pedestrian areas. _ _ . Policy LU-251. Block lengths and widths should be maintained at the pedestrian- friendly standards that predominate within the downtown. Policy LU-252. Where right-of-way is available and bicycled emand 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-W: 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. Page 41 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-255._ Buildings along South 3rd Street between Main and Burnett Avenues should retain a pedestrian scale by employing design techniques that maintain the appearance and feel of low-rise structures to avoid creation of the"canyon effect" (e.g. preserving historic façades, stepping 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 IBurnett Park subareaSubarea). Policy LU-262. New downtown parks should complement existing park facilities and be compatible with planned trails. Trails should be integrated with the existing trail system. Policy LU-263. Urban Center-Downtown development should be designed to take advantage of existing unique downtown amenities such as the Cedar River, City parks and trails, the downtown Transit Center, IKEA Performing Arts Center, and Renton High School. Policy LU-264. Public amenities such as art, fountains,or similar features should be incorporated into the design of public areas,major streets and gateways of the Urban Center-Downtown. URBAN CENTER NORTH LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office,residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Page 42 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 Center is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center-Downtown, due to to-large ale-areas of land holdings oshipavailable for redevelopment. In addition,this-new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities,new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian oriented shopping I 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 4ittirsi 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 krime airplane manufacturing operations. Page 43 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 • C , Policy LU-276. Support extension of Park Ave. to Lake Washington. Policy LU-277. Recognize the need for secure limited access within large manufacturing facilities by retaining private drives and roads in areas where airplane manufacturing operations continue. Policy LU-278. Support creation of a significant gateway feature within gateway nodes 1 as shewn-en-in the Urban Center-North-Gateway-Map. Policy LU-279. Support private/public partnerships to plan and finance infrastructure development,public uses and amenities. Policy LU-280. Use a hierarchy of conceptual plan,master plan and site plan review and approval to encourage the cohesive development of large land areas within the Urban Center-North. Incorporate integrated design regulations into this review process. Policy LU-281. Address the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design,identification of gateway features, signs, circulation, transit opportunities,and phasing through master plan and site plan review process. Policy LU-282. Fully integrate signage,building height,bulk, setbacks, landscaping, and parking considerations in structures and site plans across the various components of each proposed development. Policy LU-283. Require significant pedestrian element in internal site circulation plans. Policy LU-284. Allow phasing plans for mixed-use projects. Policy LU-285. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and intensities over time. Policy LU-286. Support structured parking to facilitate full redevelopment of the Urban Center over the 30-year planning horizon, Where structured parking is infeasible for • - - early phases of development,parking should be located in the rear or the side of the primary structure. Policy LU-287. Discourage parking lots between structures and street right-of-way. Policy LU-288. Orient buildings to streets to emphasize urban character,maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the District Policy LU-289. Use design regulations to provide direction on site design,building design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation. Policy LU-290. Support a combination of internal and external site design features such as: 1) Plazas; 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Significant natural features; 4) Distinctive focal features; and 5) Gateways. Page 44 of 76 • Adopted 11/01/04 Policies forsurrounding-Surrounding Residential area-Area(nerth North Renton neighborhood-Neighborhood,south of N 6th St) Illiwo 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 I 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 I mixed mixed-use activities, or physical re-development of properties addressing the needs of employees or residents of the Urban Center. Polley L 296. Recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as an essential-Essential die Public€acilityFacility. (See Seetion-section on Airport Compatibility-Compatible Land Use Pe ieiespolicies). Urban Center North Districts The proposed Urban Center-North is divided into two districts for planning purposes. Each District district has a different emphasis in terms of range, intensity and mix of uses. These are District One, east of Logan Avenue, and District Two, west of Logan Avenue. The implementation of planning concepts for District Two will be dependent on decisions by The Boeing Company regarding continued airplane assembly operations at the Renton Plant. For this reason,initiation of redevelopment in District Two will likely occur after transition of the area east of Logan Avenue, District One,has begun. Consolidation of Boeing operations may cause certain property located within District One to be deemed surplus,making it available for redevelopment within the near future. District One is envisioned to include a variety of uses. The intensity of these uses would require substantial infrastructure improvements. More extensive development,ultimately Page 45 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 anticipated with the future development of District Two, will likely require even more significant infrastructure upgrides. Redevelopment in both districts of the Urban Center-North will be responsive and protective of the North Renton residential neighborhood to the south. While the North Renton neighborhood is not a part of the Urban Center,its residents will benefit from the significant amenities provided by development of a new urban community. Redevelopment within both districts will occur in a manner that is not incompatible with the operations at the Renton Municipal Airport,recognizing that the airport is an essential Essential public Public facility Facility located within an urban area. Redevelopment within both districts will be consistent with the City's Airport Compatible Land Use Program. The program responds to State requirements to consider how land use in the surrounding areas affects the Renton airport. The current supply of underutilized land north of N. 8th Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties,both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area-Industrial area to the east,will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two. The following"visions"have been developed for each District. Vision-District One The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large- scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings surrounding - internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian-oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District. Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other,resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially may be handled in surface lots,their configuration,juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-format("big- Page 46 of 76 • Adopted 1 1/01/04 box")retail stores anchor development,they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are ____ --architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers. Cafes with outdoor seating, tree-lined boulevards and small gathering places invite shoppers to linger after making their initial purchases. Retail development takes an urban form with high-quality design considering a human scale and pedestrian orientation. While retail development will add to the City's tax base and create a modest increase in employment, the vision for the Urban Center-North is that of a dense employment center. Within the initial phases of redevelopment,job growth will also occur in high-quality, well-designed flex/tech development and low-to mid-rise office, lab and research and development buildings that provide attractive environments for companies offering high- I wage careers in information technology, life sciences and light CcleanD 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. Page 47 of 76 meow Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-300. Encourage the placement of buildings for retail tenants along pedestrian- oriented streets to create urban configurations_ Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments. Policy LU-302. Encourage a variety of architectural treatments and styles to create an urban environment. Objective LU-ZZ: Create an urban district initially characterized by high-quality, compact, low-rise development that can accommodate a range of independent retail, office,research,or professional companies. Support the continuing investment in and transition of low-rise development into more intensive,urban forms of development to support a vital mixed-use district over time. Policy LU-303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development through master planning, building location,and design guidelines. Policy LU-304. Support urban forms of setback and buffering treatment such as: a) Street trees with sidewalk grates, b) Paving and sidewalk extensions or plazas, and c) Planters and street furniture. Policy LU-305. Allow phasing plans for developments as part of the master plan and site plan review that: a) Provide a strategy for future infill or redevelopment with mixed-use buildings. b) Preserve opportunities for future structured parking and more intense employment-generating development. Policy LU-306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or Iunder-building parking is not market-viable. Policy LU-307. Support development of parking structures using private/public Ipartnerships 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. 'to) Page 48 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 • Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads. Vision-District Two I 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 enton 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 I 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 riame living, shopping, and working environments planned to take advantage of a regionally centralized location, efficient access,mass transit,potential passenger ferry connections, stellar views of lake and mountains, and restored natural environments along the Cedar River and Lake Washington shorelines. _ _ Development within District Two will be orgaui7ed into neighborhoods with housing, _ s 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 Icelebration of views of the Seattle skyline,the Olympic Mountains, and Mount Rainier_ Pane 49 of 76 ANEW Adopted 11/01/04 • District Two Policies Noll) Objective LU-AAA: Support ongoing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses. Policy LU-314. Support existing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses while allowing for the gradual transition to other uses should The Boeing Company surplus property within District Two. Policy LU-315. Allow airplane manufacturing and related accessory uses such as airplane sales and repair, laboratories for research,development and testing,medical institutions,and light industrial uses including small scale or less intensive production and manufacturing, and fabricating with accessory office and support services. Objective LU-BBB: If Boeing elects to surplus property in District Two, land uses will should transition into an urban area characterized by high-quality development offering landmark living, shopping and work environments planned to take advantage of access and views to the adjacent river and lake shorelines. Policy LU-316. Should The Boeing Company elect to surplus properties in District Two support the redevelopment with a range and variety of commercial,office,research, and residential uses. 1) Support a mid-to high-rise scale and intensity of development. 2) Support retail and service activities as ancillary uses that are synergistic with commercial, office,biotech,research,technology, and residential activities. Traditional retail(Main Street), general business and professional services,and general offices are examples of the types of uses that are supported in combination with other activities. 3) Support urban scale residential development in District Two.North of N. 8th Street .truptured_parking should be required. 4) Allow a limited range of service uses,such as churches, government offices and facilities,commercial parking garages, and day care centers through the conditional use process. 5) Allow eating and drinking establishments and cultural facilities as part of office or mixed-use development. 6) Prohibit new warehousing, storage including self-storage,vehicle sales,repair and display(including boats, cars,trucks and motorcycles), assembly and packaging operations,heavy and medium manufacturing and fabrication unrelated to production of new commercial airplanes. 7) Support development of public amenities such as public open space, schools, recreational and cultural facilities,and museums. 8) Allow commercial uses such as retail and services provided that they support the primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Page 50 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 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 pedestm-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 I development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provides a pedestrian scale environment. I Policy LU-317. Apply the Center Village Marion-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 4-0-14(R4014), Center Village(CV),and the Residential Multi-family zones(RMF,RM-U, and 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 Village designation iiime Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub-area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the Highlands Redevelopment-Subarea Plan is expected to occur over a 2—5-year period from the 2004 GMA update. . .. 1, . .... . .. . y..r:.5 r . t: ... . . . .. . . .....•. ... . . .. . . '..• ,!.. .. :. . • .. ... _. .4 . . .. ... , Y., . .. .. . . ... .. ... ... rete: Policy LU-320. Allow residential density ranging from a minimum ofl 0 to a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village Desidesignation. Policy LU-321. Encourage mixed-use structures and projects. I Policy LU-322. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians and-people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the ICenter 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. Diseeurage-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. Page 51 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 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 I neighborhood scale eemmeteialbusiness 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"lineafbusiness districts to business areas characterize-4by 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; Page 53 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-339. Areas of the City identified for intensive office use maybe mapped with Commercial Officeimplementing zoning when site is developed,historically used for office,or the site meets the following criteria: 1) Site is located contiguous to an existing or planned transit route; 2) Large parcel size; 3) High visibility; and 4) Opportunities for views. Policy LU-340. Small-scale medical uses associated with major institutions should be located in the portions of Commercial Corridor designated areas with Commercial Office zoning, in the Urban Center, or in the Employment Area—Valley. Policy LU-341. Retirement centers that have a medical facility as a component of the services offered should be located in areas of the Commercial Corridor that have Commercial Office zoning. Policy LU-342. Medium and high intensity office should be encouraged as the primary use in Commercial Office zoned areas. Policy LU-343. Retail and services should support the primary office use in areas identified for Commercial Office zoning, and should be located on the ground floor of office and parking structures. Policy LU-344. In the Commercial Office zone,high-rise office development should be limited to ten(10)stories. Fifteen(15)stories may be obtained through a height bonus system. Policy LU-345. Height bonuses of five(5) stories may be allowed for office buildings in designated-areas-of the-Commercial Office zone, under appropriate conditions;-where sites provide additional public benefits such as plazas,parks, exceptional landscaping, and/or public art. Objective LU-GGG: Guide redevelopment of land in the Commercial Corridor I designation with Commercial Arterial zoning, from the existing strip commercial urban forms into more concentrated forms, in which structures and parking evolve from the existing suburban form,to more efficient urban configurations with cohesive site planning. Policy LU-346. Support the redevelopment of commercial business districts located along principal arterials in the City. Policy LU-347. Implement development standards that encourage lively, attractive, medium to high-density commercial areas. Policy LU-348. Encourage consolidation of individual parcels to maximize flexibility of site design and reduce access points. Page 55 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-349. Support development plans incorporating the following features: 1) Shared access points and fewer curb cuts; 2) Internal circulation among adjacent parcels; 3) Shared parking facilities; 4) Allowance for future transition to structured parking facilities; 5) Centralized signage; 6) Unified development concepts; and 7) Landscaping and streetscape that softens visual impacts. Policy LU-350. New development in Commercial Corridor designated areas should be encouraged to implement uniform site standards, including: 1) Minimum lot depth of 200 feet; 2) Maximum height of ten(10)stories within office zoned designations; 3) Parking preferably at the rear of the building,or on the side as a second choice; 4) Setbacks that would allow incorporating a landscape buffer; 5) Front setback without frontage street or driveway between building and sidewalk; and 6) Common signage and lighting system. Policy LU-351. Identify and map activity nodes located along principal arterials that are the foundation of the Corridors, and guide the development or redevelopment of these nodes as activity areas for the larger corridors so that they enhance their function. Policy LU-352. Development within defined activity nodes should be subject to additional design guidelines as delineated in the development standards. Policy LU-353. Structures at Commercial Corridor intersections should not be set back from the street and sidewalk so as to allow vehicular circulation or parking to be located between the sidewalk and the building. Policy LU-354. Commercial-Corridor intersections frequented by pedestrians,due to the - - nature of nearby uses or transit stops,should feature sidewalk pavement increased to form pedestrian corners and include pedestrian amenities, signage, and special design • treatment that would make them identifiable as activity areas for the larger corridor. Policy LU-355. Parking at designated intersections should be in back of structures and not located between structures and the sidewalk or street. Policy LU-356. Structures in Commercial Corridor areas that front sidewalks abutting the principal arterial or are located at activity nodes should be eligible for a height bonus and therefore may exceed the maximum allowable height in the district. Policy LU-357. Public amenity features (e.g. plazas,recreation areas) should be encouraged as part of new development or redevelopment. Policy LU-358. Parking areas should be landscaped(including street trees,buffers, berms), especially along roadways,to reduce visual impacts. Objective LU-HHH: Support methods of increasing accessibility to Commercial Corridor areas for both automobile and transit to support the land use objectives of the district. '44.) Page 56 of 76 • Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-359. Support routing of the citywide transit system to Commercial Corridor areas to provide greater access. Policy LU-360. Encourage development proponents to work with the City Transportation Division,King County METRO, and Sound Transit in order to site transit stops within the Commercial Corridor areas. Policy LU-361. Public transportation transit stops located in Commercial Corridor areas should be safe, clean, comfortable, and attractive. Objective LU-III: Ensure quality development in Commercial Office zones. Policy LU-362. Office sites and structures should be designed(e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping;parking)to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy LU-363. Parking provided on-site, in parking structures,and either buffered from adjacent uses or incorporated into pedestrian-oriented street design, is preferred. Policy LU-364. In areas developed with high intensity office uses, circulation within the site should be primarily pedestrian-oriented. Policy LU-365. In areas developed with high intensity office uses,vehicular access to the site should be from the primary street with the access points minimised and designed to ease entrance and exit. Policy LU-366. Public amenity features(e.g. parks,plazas,recreation areas)}should be encouraged(i.e. through incentives or similar means)as part of every high-intensity office development. Policy LU-367. In areas developed with high intensity office uses, site and building design should be transit-,people-, and pedestrian-oriented. Ground floor uses and design should be pedestrian-oriented. Objective LIT-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. Page 57 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 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. Page 58of76 Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-377. On-site landscaping should consist of a minimum two and one half percent(2.5%)of the gross site area. Policy LU-378. On-site landscaping should primarily be located at site entries, in front of buildings, and at other locations with high visibility from public areas. Policy LU-379. Vehicle service areas should not be readily visible from public rights-of- way. Objective LU-NNN: Use of the Auto Mall District by pedestrians should be encouraged by improving safety and creating an attractive, "walkable"business environment. Policy LU-380. Designated walkways should be part of a larger network of pedestrian connections between businesses throughout the district. Policy LU-381. To enhance use of the Auto Mall Improvement District by pedestrians the following features should be used: • Wheel stops or curbs placed to prevent overhang of sidewalks by vehicle bumpers. • Customer parking located and clearly marked near site entries. • Coordinated dealer-to-dealer signage should be developed. NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor Discussion: The NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor is unique in the City due to the highly eclectic mix of commercial and residential uses along its length. These integrated uses, located at a "gateway"to the City, are an appropriate signal to those entering Renton that the community is diverse in many ways. Height limitations in the Development Standards have kept buildings along the NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor at two stories or below, a scale that is generally consistent with the various forms of residential along the corridor.- - - - - - - Objective LU-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 ilirseI Neiglberheed-Center Village. Page 59 of 76 a Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-385. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor should be implemented by Commercial Arterial (CA)zoning. Policy LU-386. Vehicle sales businesses existing in the NE Sunset Boulevard Business Corridor should be encouraged to relocate to the Renton Auto Mall District. Northeast Fourth Corridor Discussion: The Northeast Fourth Corridor is an active commercial area located at a gateway to the City. It features a wide variety of retail and service uses and several different structural forms from small professional offices to large-scale strip malls with major grocery anchors. Annexations of land into the City to the east of this commercial area and subsequent development of large single family housing projects has increased the market area for the Northeast Fourth Corridor considerably in recent years. Objective LU-PPP: A special commercial area should be designated along Northeast Fourth Street. The purpose of this area would be to enhance the commercial environment to increase revenue of local businesses and the City's tax base. Policy LU-387. Within the Northeast Fourth Corridor,the`Business District"should be bounded by Queen Avenue NE(on the west)and Field Ave N.E. (on the east). Policy LU-388. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the Northeast Fourth Corridor Business District should be implemented by Commercial Arterial(CA) zoning. Objective LU-QQQ: The Northeast Fourth Corridor Business District should be enhanced to improve-efficiency, safety and attractiveness to both potential shoppers and pass-through traffic. Policy LU-389. Due to its location at a key entrance to the City from the east,the Northeast Fourth Corridor Business District should include gateway features. Policy LU-390. The Northeast Fourth Business District should be enhanced with boulevard design features such as landscaped center—of=road medians for the purpose of improving safety through traffic control and slowing traffic for pedestrian safety and improved conditions for vehicles leaving and entering the principal arterial. Policy LU-391. To the extent possible, undeveloped parcels and pads and/or redevelopment in the Northeast Fourth Corridor Business District should feature street- I facing building facades located a maximum of fifteen(15) feet set-back from the non- curb edge of sidewalks abutting the principal arterial. Policy LU-392. In the Northeast Fourth Business Corridor Business District,where buildings are set back more than fifteen(15) feet from the principal arterial,new development or redevelopment should: %if) Page 60 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 1. Contribute a furnished public gathering space,abutting the sidewalk along the principal arterial, of no less than 1,000 square feet with a minimum dimension of twenty(20)feet on one side. Such space should have landscaping, including street trees,decorative paving,pedestrian-scaled lighting and seating, at a minimum. 2. Designate appropriate site(s) for future pad development for additional commercial structures located to conform to maximum setback requirements. Rainier Avenue Corridor Discussion: The Rainier Avenue Corridor is one of the most commercially viable areas of the City. Redevelopment of infrastructure and businesses in the Rainier Corridor would present the opportunity to strengthen the transition between the Corridor, a major transportation route through the west part of the City, and the Urban Center. Changes of this nature could increase the economic vitality ofRenton's Downtown. Objective LU-RRR: A special commercial area should be designated along Rainier Avenue. The purpose of this area would be to enhance the commercial environment to increase revenue of local businesses and the City's tax base. Policy LU-393. Within the Rainier Avenue Corridor,the`Business District"should be bounded by properties directly north of S. 2"d Street on the north and the Houser railroad trestle on the south where it abuts the Auto Mall District. Policy LU-394. The policies of the Commercial Corridor designation and the Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District should be implemented by Commercial Arterial(CA) 411641 zoning. Policy LU-395. Uses in the Rainier Avenue Corridor should be primarily retail-oriented, and may have an emphasis on providing goods on a high-volume, vehicle-accessed basis, but should also provide high-quality and specialty goods. Objective LU-SSS: Due to the nature of the retail core business in the Rainier Avenue Corridor, vehicular access and egress safety should be a primary consideration. Policy LU-396. In the Rainier Avenue Corridor access points to businesses fronting the principal arterial should be consolidated if at all possible and curb cuts reduced wherever feasible. I Policy LU-397. Business signs in the Rainier Avenue mess-Corridor should be uniform in size, content, and location to reduce visual clutter. Monument signs are the preferred type. Policy LU-398. New billboard signs should be disallowed in the Rainier Avenue Corridor Business District due to the large scale of the signs in relation to the scale of the district. Existing signs should be dwell maintained so that visual impact is reduced. Page 61 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 • 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 Leh er-benches, an information kiosk, and a trash receptacle. Policy LU-402. Rainier Avenue should be improved with landscaped median and additional street trees to improve safety and appearance. Policy LU-403. Property owners and business owners should be encouraged to provide awnings or other weather protection on facades of buildings fronting sidewalks. Objective LU-UUU: The Rainier Avenue Corridor Business Corridor District is one of the busiest arterials in the City and is located as a gateway to the City from both the south and north. The design, function, and configuration of the District should reflect its status as a key gateway. Policy LU-404. The Rainier Avenue Corridor should feature gateway elements to the extent made possible by redevelopment. Policy LU-405. Signage in the Rainier Avenue`-Corridor Business District should include high quality City directional signs to the Urban Center,City Hall, IKEA Performing Arts Center,Piazza Park, City parking garage, library,museum, and other prominent public destinations. j Page 62 of 76 I . , (r. , ( , C ' . . ' •'--...,,•,-.• -- Ifi 'irityillileivati wori -"pp-, ,. 0.. -....,,...\\,..,‘14 4,1! /N\ . ,„„ ,........±. x r- i ,..--, _. ,:.7..,•• -.........-1 .. . v•„',;',.'1 r‘ --..-' ,?, 7 , 41 _. *:. • ' ,•-':::lr...n:ri-'' I- 1/ Al •-• +..... _ ....J / a,!" \ CA 'T 3."'742,F,Pr-- F"- L. "I _-_-_], -" .-, --';a4/77/7 ,r- , —..._,..... -.., r Pi,/ --- ,fir /- , -- ..•'""" ' ----.11;. ' . Tii - g /,..... ..., , N -- , cs-'- i• ''''' - \gh P\ _ _,_. . _,„ .., ' - ,----?tr..-k •.,. ,.----..-J _...- d: 2-1',.- PIE- - -- "--,...„----A Swi--:------( ; 1.7, • .„,. , \c„,-- _...-- -1 .---- ,..--.,.-J ......,' ,.., I:: • -, - , • ....,..,1 .4___,) _____ :., ...,„. e,:b.---c-e,\.4\ ,,,, ,c,x,, ,;,..._;::__\„ ,.... \\_. c:.„...-,...4.- :al- „.„--.... .._ at El---, ., •__,-, 7 1 I - ' 1 t--\ !f- .-... ---..,./ , ....*S.:2-,:',--- ---,,,,, ,:-.7 r''''''' ' .-------- ------ ----- •rd- ./".:0 •• - ai -- a!- ... -II '-,zi ',--: .-4,-/ , 1....., -r—, -:,..z... ------- .....,,-,,e. 11/,,,,,, ,,,o,,.," :-.1L'^- --•=. ' u ''''' .--- • ' 1.-- , ___,,,/, \, -----7'-- ':-.-:1->"------r------ ';';',").i,, '',(...,,,,,,YeAr; lier4 , .. T.) H.i.z .--• ' •/11 ,. 1! k -..44,4 -"•"."•"47, 1114 -2 = 'III • I - ____,L_ if . ...4/4.4.-'.-/-e,f,/ -, l=", =r '' ----- -----------11----- L 8. ,,,,,..:,t;.--::,-..,--.5;,-,,,;,, :". --- .--4 / __ ,_....__ _ --- I „ . ..... ...,„..... , „,,,....., --,-- • ----;;;;;9;s1, r7,,,,,...,, ,, ;-„rgor ,,,, .... % ,. :if.1 I '''''. , //r,er ,•...". ,S-'•V/;.''''1, 4 '' ---- -r-- ' ' '3?.,•;i'01'4';;;4"' '' '';'•Yr-;•,{ / 4./ L i \N f'— . \\o____., i (,, ........._ tt I ----.— I' '.'•-•.;- >".4-4,'Z'fr,,e/Ir.p4K";`,::1 -- IV \\\A cso ------' • .f,re,.,,,:-.;,,,,,,...,,,..,- vy,,,/,.„....,...„. . ,.,„....,e,,,,,,,;„ \ #(/ 1 7 d I i ')?•' , -' .0•./.,•4.,,i'-',,...,:,,, -'.:, ,:..,,,,,,' - 0,07.7%",./4-4 ---1 f,,,e,„. :ft/ /(:-...-,1., k g,,,.:11.0,,,-,:„,,f...,,„" i • •,--P'-6,4,741-,,,,,,,,,4 _,__,... W i _I, ,.......,,,... 1 co ____,, r,,,,,,,,,,,,,e.,,,,,.?,,,.., •.,_-.-_,, ,:,00v;,,,,, ,,,,- 1:;,.2.--,-...,.....,,,, ,,,.,,,,,w,-,4, ....,' /-1' \ • ....) . -41..7--1;','•'''';':'!.'.'; '''' -'. ,,,-1,-:''x''.'" t•iii_01!'--jtlitr'VON' •-4411:.-;;4?..//).;",.:~:',...'— . .----- 4' ..•••• i \ \ \ .4"'''',,r,'''-.'•',;,, "'"?-7. '....,--,,,,r, '•)ct:;;-;:7',41-4`,,,,,,':;:',.':. '. .,. :,:ls, 1.34spoir'' ' •Le;,?"'""/,,,,:;:,-,04.Vp.',0,41,7' Elli: \ '...1'..'ee..,0.,-. •''" ' _ 1 - „„,/,, ,t-,,,,f!1',3%.;',,•,,...,;;./.:+'I!.,:•,,':./,''A idivi -•, ..011" . ''',17/7;e";r':',:,-17'• ..,--,..•,,,:,*...,:s.0..?..1,:',.,,t- :-. "....- . \ - _ ,--- --,...eg ,-• ..-- - 1-----1 L....A‘--4- .,._., _... —. T. . I [. A _.--....-L,), ,,,,,,<. d un w.....4 i-,i /AIM .". Fs: IT7'1 .....,,v‘ 1 CA\V\ __ _ _ .,_, I 4,ri, i 1 • • CA 1 sfZ _____._..\_,,,(4, 1..,—±, 1-1- 1 St• 1 I ----SW L leth I 14-J ---J "Ita7 i -'-'--- ---- --- ' • t-1-1--- 4\ :1-. I 1.11 -11 ',Nr:, _. .._ ------ -Ili II—I-- 1 i II 1 r--..-j:A: ---.V-.-. ---.1._.... II -.: .._...... .,7- --/ ( A ----L---- . a 6.1 '--. • ___________,_ /1\ \\ , r •ei . IlipA .. JO vr. .. .._. ._,F.I\ --% . \ 1.------ i ma . IrtI' - IN" .-I ''r PrzflTgE3 -k • ,Autornall f.-..-el Automat'°etre-ear-del Corridor-Area A r./...."..,-A At4ornall Commercial Corridor -Area B • I 2 - ,, — i I C3 f----• ___:.1.-//* , * ,.,./ ,...., -- . ,-- #_47.1_4. om :' .._.. ._ _ ___.. C .. .._�... _ _ _ _ � war w •. .--- ,__1 „r \ Y ,7-tl ,„‘'N " MN 111 0 •- , 11 TT.11 . ,,,,_....,3„:•, :,,,,_...T. .,..,.-'- --17 -ie-r.___ 161---- -11- Ia _ .ter 4A4 ---- ._:- • 1 Ch L!! [ aro' __ L._ ) L.,( r _ t. . _ate ._. , .. 1 q _.. __.., Y ` I '1 T I� r I ui 1 ...A..1 .---1,. .-----A --1 ____I _ . ._. ._ ...nt -r\> / 771 ( 1".1-1-17-') , (ii• t__.... ,,....., _ ...._. ti NE Sunset l d Business District -,•, ~51117V.. �` an Business District • . (16,,,,C i ( s c . (r,r . — IC, ._.......7_ 17._ _._ ,,s;, 1..... _ ..,._L______ IILTED, i , ,'—'11-1 1-- - ir---- - -- -------r-L- __ ____ , _ _______. L....__ __ il. - -- iFf linn- r'') - - ,.., ,•------ ------7 - - --_-- I _-_-_p ro 1,54 r- _ ,.z.. , .„ r ::_...- —,_,... ____ 7.1 [il F2.CELD L_Irm". .---7, z4..i_j 1-- _1-4 E-4f IT --—_ _,-; •,-....../,,t3 ,,,.....:_..........._.::. - 117-LET' .1."." . ... ._ .. .... _. .. ....... ..., - --- _.,.. • i ir MA _ __ I- F . , . .........._..,.... ... ,.., . s . , . . . 1 . . . - • --HI RM—F • • ..., - - H -• . ., . . _ . . • , ..._ • . ..., ' . .•. .., . , . i . . . . . . , . h ------ - . , _ : • ... .. . . ,_ . . ,. ..„ . ._ . .. _ .., 1 ' ..... .-. . ......... .........'7 — -""7-•'''.1 ....--,----..--.. ...——....____. ..—... ' - '•-• - .... ._. ... , .. . L. I LII ,.‘,.., ON CA I I thaw= - • 1-----i 1 i _i i 1 • 1 ....r..1......r.._ Ai 1 I. - 1 , . [ -- t----1---77±"--- ITTT\---1-7-Th-7-7:-----vs-T-7 1----1Y--------1----1---C:--_.- L_-'--- NE 4th 'Business District • :„4%,..„... wwtemte..---.aliete0.1,144, as Business District s ' • . Adopted 11/01/04 . _C.- 1 1 i 1 — s i11-----1 it Iti tom. ! — -- �` � A ,�- ' 1' ,, 1S2nd St -^�` G(y/7/ Z. L ' t S� t. .-- 121 .I -`lam �f I l r 'l`.f f 1 ,`� `� " .1-1 r f a�� i ., _ v -7---.7._,, ,,f-../ lamr.,....„� _ H. • .. i� �i _ I.' -fir . ry,J (fl r, E `-\3\ " jI IP —1 j 7f Pi � ' I q/ �� ,,,------1r 1 _ ,41100 CcA ...-- --',. .-,.. .. O. r`:3,1T mu ii 1 P.- 711111 1 \ ---4-i i ! ! 1,_��tll St l` t✓ �� ! --1 E�M� Rainier Business District 1 z/_-, x...................., mi ambles&District Page 66 of 76 • Adopted 11/01/04 COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION ikasti Purpose Statement: The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)designation provides opportunities for large-scale office, commercial1 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-VW: Development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations should be cohesive,high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity. Policy LU-406. Designate Commercial/Office/Residential in locations meeting the following criteria: 1) There is the potential for redevelopment, or a sufficient amount of vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development; 2) The COR site could function as a gateway to the City; 3) COR sites should be located on major transit and transportation routes; and 4) The COR location has significant amenity value, such as water access, that can support landmark development. Policy LU-407. Consistent with the locational criteria, Commercial/Office/Residential designations may be placed on property adjacent to, or abutting,residential, commercial, industrial designations or publicly owned properties. COR designations next to higher intensity zones such as industrial, or next to public uses,may provide a transition to less intense designations in the vicinity. Site design of COR should consider the long-term •retention of adjacent or abutting industrial or public uses. Policy LU-408. Uses in Commercial/Office/Residential designations should include I 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. Page 67 of 76 . Adopted 11/01/04 . Policy LU-411. Individual properties may have-a-single use if they can be developed at the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR designation I e _• - " = ':=- ' :•:- , or if proposed as part of a phased development and multi-parcel proposal that includes a mix of uses. Policy LU-412. Structured parking should be required. If lack of fmancial feasibility can be demonstrated at the time of the COR development,phased structured parking should be accommodated in the proposed master plan. Policy LU-413. Sites that have significant limitations on redevelopment due to environmental, access, and/or land assembly constraints should be granted flexibility of use combinations and development standards through the master plan process. Policy LU-414. Private/public partnerships should be encouraged to provide infrastructure development, transportation facilities,public uses, and amenities. Policy LU-415. Adjacent properties within a designated COR should be combined for master planning purposes and public review regardless of ownership. Policy LU-416. Master plans should coordinate the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of gateway features, signs, circulation,transit opportunities, and phasing regardless of ownership of individual parcels. Policy LU-417. Maximum residential density at COR designated sites should range between 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The same area used for commercial and office development may also be used to calculate residential density. Policy LU-418. Commercial/Office/Residential master plans should be guided by design criteria specific to the location,context,and scale of the designated COR. COR Design Guidelines should fully integrate signage, building height, bulk, setbacks, landscaping, and parking considerations for the various components of each proposed project within the COR development. Policy LU-419. Internally, Commercial/Office/Residential developments should be primarily pedestrian-oriented. Internal site circulation of vehicles should be separated from pedestrians wherever feasible by dedicated walkways. Policy LU-420. Primary vehicular access to COR development should be from principal arterials. Internal streets should be sized hierarchically. Curb cuts should not conflict with pedestrian routes, if possible. Policy LU-421. Commercial/Office/Residential developments should have a combination of internal and external site design features,such as: Page 68 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 1) Public plazas; 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Public access to natural features or views; 4) Distinctive focal features; 5) Indication of the function as a gateway, if appropriate; 6) Structured parking; and 7) Other features meeting the spirit and intent of the COR designation. 1100.1 Page 69 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE DESIGNATION I 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. Page 70.of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-030. Commercial structures in Commercial Neighborhood designated areas I should be compatible with nearby residential areas in height,fon front yard setbacks, lot coverage,building design,and use. Page 71Q76 Adopted 11/01/04 . XI. EMPLOYMENT AREAS INogif Goal: Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial, high technology, office, and commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a strengthening of Renton's employment base. Discussion: These policies are designed to ensure that Renton will have adequate reserves of land and appropriate use designations to further its economic development efforts. Adequate land is necessary to attract new businesses in an effort to expand and divers, and stabilize the employment base. There are two Employment Area Land Use Designations: 1) Employment Area—Industrial 2) Employment Area— Valley • Flexibility is encouraged in the Employment Areas by allowing a range of uses and multiple users on sites. Research and development businesses may need to evolve into production and distribution facilities as products are developed and receive approval for marketing. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses. Objective LU-XXX: Encourage economic growth resulting in greater diversity and stability in the employment and tax bases by providing adequate land capacity through zoning amounts of land to meet the needs of future employers. Policy LU-431. The City should endeavor to expand its present economic base, emphasizing new technologies,_research and development facilities, science parks, and high-technology centers, and supporting commercial and office land uses. Policy LU-432. In each employment designation, an appropriate mix of commercial, office, light industrial, and industrial uses should be supported. The mix will vary depending on the employment area emphasis. Policy LU-433. Encourage flexibility in use and reuse of existing, conforming structures to allow business to evolve in response to market and production requirements. Policy LU-434. Support location of commercial and service uses in proximity to office or industrial uses to develop nodes of employment supported by services. Objective LU-YYY: Promote the development of low impact, light industrial uses, particularly those within the high-technology category, in Employment Area-Valley and Employment Area-Industrial designations where potentially adverse impacts can be mitigated. Page 72 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-435. Site planning review should ensure that light industrial uses are neither intrusive nor adversely affected by other uses nearby. EMPLOYMENT AREA-INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The Employment Area Industrial designation is intended to provide continued opportunity for manufacturing and industrial uses that create a strong employment base in the City. i Discussion: Although location is an important factor for all types of development, it is especially critical for industrial development. Industries need good access in areas with low traffic volumes. As the City becomes more urban, they need assurance that incompatible uses will not be allowed that could eventually force them to relocate. Other uses, especially residential, also want to ensure that industries do not impact their neighborhoods with noise, traffic, and other nuisances and hazards. For these reasons, although commercial areas may see more diversity and mixing of uses, industrial areas will remain somewhat isolated from other uses. Objective LU-ZZZ: Sustain industrial areas that function as integrated employment activity areas and include a core of industrial uses and other related businesses and services, transit facilities,and amenities. Policy LU-436. The primary use in the Employment Area-Industrial designation should be industrial. rrr, 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. Page 73 of 76 • Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-441. When more intensive new uses are proposed for locations in close proximity to less intensive existing uses, the responsibility for mitigating any adverse impacts should be the responsibility of the new use. Policy LU-442. Off-site impacts from industrial development such as noise,odors, light and glare, surface and ground water pollution, and air quality should be controlled through setbacks, landscaping, screening and/or fencing, drainage controls, environmental mitigation, and other techniques. Policy LU-443. Light industrial uses that result in noise or odors, should be located in the Employment Area-Industrial designation. EMPLOYMENT AREA-VALLEY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Employment Area-Valley designation is to allow the gradual transition of the Valley from traditional industrial and warehousing uses to more intensive retail service and office activities. The intent is to allow these new activities without making industrial uses non-conforming and without restricting the ability of existing businesses to expand. Objective LU-AAAA: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses,including commercial, office, and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton. Policy LU-444. Develop the Green River Valley("The Valley") and the Black River Valley(located between Sunset Blvd and SW Grady Way) areas as places for a range and variety of commercial, office,and industrial. ‘',44) 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-MU ' 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. Page 74 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 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 %No 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. r', Policy LU-454. Commercial Office zoning should be supported where a site has high visibility,particularly in those portions of the Valley that are gateways and/or along the I- 405 and SR 167 corridors, where larger sites can accommodate more intensive uses, and where sites can take advantage of existing and/or future multi-modal transportation opportunities. IObjective LII 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. Page 75 of 76 ATTACHMENT D RIVERA CPA 2006-M-03 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMENDMENT FROM RS TO RMD LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.; All situate in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT D SPRINGBROOK CPA 2006-M-04 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RMD TO CC LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 4 of City of Renton East Valley Medical Park Short Plat#77-113, as recorded under Rec. No. 7808151009, records of King County; TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Talbot Rd right of way lying westerly of the centerline of said right of way and northerly and southerly of the southern and northern boundaries, respectively, extended easterly to said centerline. All situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton,King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT D Ntiisw- PUGET COLONY HOMES CPA 2006-M-05 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMENDMENT FROM RS TO RLD LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. described as follows: That portion of the Northeast quarter of said section, lying westerly of the centerline of Hoquiam Ave NE and southerly of the centerline of NE 2nd St in the City of Renton; TOGETHER WITH the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said section; LESS the west 120 feet thereof, in unincorporated King County; TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said section, lying northerly and easterly of Tract A of Hideaway Home Sites, as recorded in Vol. 81 of Plats, Pages 88 & 89, records of King County, Washington; LESS the west 120 feet of the north 30 feet thereof, in unincorporated King County; All situate in King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT D NrIS AQUA BARN CPA 2006-M-07 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMENDMENT FROM RLD TO CC LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 3 & 4 of King County Short Plat L99S3019, as recorded in Vol. 147, Pages 104, 104A, 104B and 104C, under recording number 20010831900002, records of King County; All situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT D AQUA BARN CPA 2006-M-07 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMENDMENT FROM RLD TO RMD LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1 & 2 and Tract D of King County Short Plat L99S3019, as recorded in Vol. 147, Pages 104, 104A, 104B and 104C, under recording number 20010831900002, records of King County; All situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington. �1rr+" ATTACHMENT D UPPER KENNYDALE CPA 2006-M-08 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMENDMENT FROM RS TO RLD LEGAL DESCRIPTION All those lands contained within the following described boundary: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Tract 291 of the Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4, recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 82, records of King County, Washington; Thence southerly along the southerly extension of the east line of said Tract, to an intersection with the centerline of NE 16th St; Thence westerly along said centerline to an intersection with the centerline of Jones Ave NE; Thence southerly along said centerline of Jones Ave NE to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south line of Tract 320 of the Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. Five, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 83, records of said county; Thence westerly along said extension and the south line of said Tract to its intersection with the easterly right of way margin of Interstate 405; Thence northerly along the various courses of said easterly margin to the south line of Lot 4 of the Plat of Eldon Acres, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Pages 86 A&B, records of said county; Thence easterly along the south line of said Lot 4 to the Southwest corner of Lot 8 of the Urch Subdivision according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 88 of Plats, Page 79, records of said county; Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 8 and the northerly extension thereof to the centerline of NE 27th Ct; Thence east along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Jones Ave NE; Thence north along said centerline to an intersection with the easterly extension of the north line of Tract 278 of said Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4; ATTACHMENT D Thence easterly along said easterly extension and said north line to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat#00-067 as recorded under King County Rec. No. err 20010426900009; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 4 to the Southeast corner thereof, said south east corner being a point on the south line of said Tract 278; Thence westerly along the south line of Tract 278 to the Northeast corner of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment#86-010 as recorded under King County Rec. No. 198609229011; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 1 to the Southeast corner thereof; Thence southerly crossing NE 26th Pl. to the Northeast corner of Lot 2 of said lot line adjustment; Thence southerly along the east line of said lot to the southeast corner thereof, said Southeast corner being a point on the north line of Tract 295 of said Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4; Thence easterly along the north line of said Tract 295, to the northeast corner thereof; Thence southerly along the east line of said Tract 295, to an intersection with the north line of the South 150 feet of Tract 282 of said plat; Noire Thence easterly along said north line, to its intersection with the westerly right of way margin of Kennewick Ave NE; Thence southerly along said westerly margin to an intersection with the westerly extension of the northerly line of Lot 1 of the Plat of Sunset Hills, recorded in Volume 169 of Plats, Pages 51-55, records of said county; Thence easterly along said extension and the north line of said Lot 1 to the northeast corner thereof, said Northeast corner being on the west line of Lot 11 of said plat; Thence northerly along said west line to the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; Thence easterly along the north lines of Lots 11, 12 & 13 of said plat, to the Northeast corner of said Lot 13; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 13 and its southerly extension crossing NE 24th St to the southerly right of way margin thereof; Thence westerly along said southerly margin, to the east line of the of the West 63 feet of the East half of the North 200 feet of Tract 273 of said Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4; ATTACHMENT D Thence southerly along said east line, to the south line of the North 200 feet of said Tract 273; Thence westerly along said north line, to the west line of Tract 283 of said plat; Thence southerly along the east lines of Tracts 283 &284 of said plat to an intersection with the north line of the South 80 feet of Tract 272 of said plat; Thence easterly along said north line to the east line of the West 126 feet of said Tract 272; Thence southerly along said east line and its southerly extension crossing NE 20`" St, to the southerly right of way margin thereof; Thence westerly along said southerly margin, to the northeast corner of the tract of land identified as"UTILITIES AND OPEN SPACE EASEMENT"on sheet 2 of 3 of the Plat of Higate, as recorded in Volume 113 of Plats, Pages 44-46, records of said county; Thence southerly along the various courses of the easterly boundary of said tract of land to the Southeast corner thereof, said southeast corner being on the northerly right of way margin of NE 17th Pl; Thence along the various courses of the southerly boundary of said tract, to its intersection with the west line of said tract, said west line also being the west line of Tract 270 of said Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4; Thence northerly along said west line of Tract 270 and 271 to the Northwest corner of said Tract 271, said Northwest corner also being a point on the southerly right of way margin of NE 20th St; Thence westerly along said southerly margin to the Northeast corner of Tract 292 of said plat; Thence southerly along the east lines of said Tracts 292 & 291 to the beginning. All situate in Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT D HIGHLANDS CPA 2006-M-06 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RMD TO RMF LEGAL DESCRIPTION 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. ATTACHMENT D HIGHLANDS CPA 2006-M-06 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RMD TO CV LEGAL DESCRIPTION Blocks 4 and 5 of Fair View Terrace, according to the plat thereof,recorded in Volume 60 of Plats,pages 65&66,records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots 1 and 6 of Block 29, Correction Plat Renton Highlands No. 2, Replat of Blocks 12, 13, 14, 36, 37 and 38, according to the plat thereof,recorded in Volume 57 of Plats,pages 92-98,records of King County;and TOGETHER WITH thatrtion of the east half of Harrington Ave NE, lying southerly of the centerline of NE 9'Street extended westerly, and northerly of the centerline of NE 7th Street extended westerly; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the south half of NE 9th Street lying westerly of the east line of said Block 5 of the plat Fair View Terrace extended northerly,and easterly of `the easterly right of way margin of Harrington Ave NE; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of NE 8th Place lying westerly of the east line of said Block 5 extended southerly,to the south right of way margin thereof, and easterly of the easterly right of way margin of Harrington Ave NE;and TOGETHER WITH that portion of NE 8th Street lying westerly of a line beginning at the SE corner of Block 4 of said plat and terminating at the NE corner of Lot 1, Block 29, of said plat Correction Plat Renton Highlands No. 2, and easterly of the easterly right of_ way margin of Harrington Ave NE; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the north half of NE 7th Street lying westerly of the east line of Lot 6, Block 29 of said plat extended southerly, and easterly of the easterly right of way margin of Harrington Ave NE. All situate in the Southwest quarter and the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT D • 9, ityf xi,——vi N;quilitipl 4k.,-.440 7.14/1 0- • _n,._ii .r. k rt ., . Ifictlitl --; . IF III . ,-- , i ,,1,.. r[111 a,,,,..1.1F-4,71.1iiitt, ' - -• - "I"ure, ,,,fillf N.., 'L'- - ild— ' ,i4 ..... ..., • • A . „ , IA! ifill ATLI lilkAzZo'ior ' & 1 `` 4::---::::i - 41_04011101111In- • 1 lbw,* l', * 'W•":"..t1Plimiart..4 •;:,-?„.., ‘ .. Lit _ rob,,.\ LAKE WASHINGTON III ill 1!ITTIiiip,t7.e.-" L' 4iffie: N .:7 "..1t.:10:_y4"1 • ..... i 'd Ali= Iliprin.11,ta,,-,-; kik% . \ ,... 'HIT-NAN p,;.\$:,•..>-, .;,N i l'' Lila ri;k4 ' E ",--'• -Iwo ,.,111,t,..._.if a ii-,..• , ' a -*imp. !'1F41.1.774441161:flif, '‘-7.r?,.`;':::'‘'i,',*I 4141,,,,,ii1,41111131741rwila ;T -'' III !viir40, ) Freva6r ‘1:4,. -- ,,,'' v7g4-F;,, maiitt-. _ olk POIC-Aerol'- • 40ik ''iii or igut ir 4 ""I'.- ilii t - , -- „,_ ..e.a.mow 4# 1te - i'a• /- -II -,r4.i.s1 i ' . - '' .- -. '"- , '10Niitzt,' i.!41. 6",/ P \ . . .,... ,. ,, .. ..... . , ; :.• „ .,,' ---....-•.,-...:',..--....:,,a," ' 11111 :II ill t,11,VE7P7A '''..*41.#2493 tit,...-V Illiii sic...... ,.......1.4 II IIII 044 .„, ••• , 4,.„•,„,,,.,,,,„„,,,,,,,•,,,,., IIIII .,,•- , .EL El ., w 4.) .. R•eirbijirtm4411,,,4 twitiso:.,, ,, ,..::,:-,.... i.--_.-, 61,:r ril 1 :. • ila I, ,.,,,e..,'iresup,!p...s,\i'llNkaim-wL,0111111•115t,'P'-?".144-51.14 -' III- : l'51\:::140,:-,t-:'-.4:\s(41."-6-.--itfi,,,\.-L'Irl: ,,'..';')-.J,i;_;':i..,..1. r, ..„....0„,... ,,,...... Nth 7A.,111011 - wall , .... ., 11 a: • r 1pf,-... Ir , Mlle MI IL- al Will AU'. ' 1 liclot 1 Et iii o ...,.., .,.. ..., ....., . . ., ,,.. . ..,,,,. .... ..., ‘..2,1 .......,.i , -Norm . pmg: Ill EMU -it IASI IIII EMIsAlsa310111/Hafalnarlill LAKE YOUNGS 4000 :::t ••••• ..-. 11"1111M111rkertintiMsWilrgigi 1111•1 EMPLOYMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL City of Renton wa Residential Low Density I= Employment Area-Industrial =I Employment Area-Valley Residential Single Family Residential Medium Density Comprehensive Plan = = Residential Multi-Fannly No Land Use Map COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS CENTER DESIGNATIONS 647: Commercial Neighborhood Er.:„, Conunerciall0Mce/Residential = Center Village OM Commercial Corridor EDNSP I I orbcity unlit. .Center Downtown = Urban Center-North —•a.•tta. Urban Growth Boundary + *ER + P/B/PW0TeChTliCl sSneerVsliceS R.Mac n ,D.Visneski Pruned November 2006 ATTACHMENT E 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. Noire 6. Create efficiently functioning air transportation facilities that are responsibly integrated with the City's transportation system and land use pattern. 7. Maintain and improve truck and freight rail access to Renton industrial areas,and integrate freight transportation needs into Renton's multi-modal transportation system. 8. Develop a funding and implementation program for needed transportation improvements supporting adopted land use policies,that distributes transportation costs equitably between public agencies and private development. 9. Develop a transportation system that contributes to the attainment and maintenance of regional air and water quality standards within the City of Renton, and complies with regional, state, and Federal air water quality standards,and preserves/protects natural resources. 10. Develop and maintain relationships between Renton and other agencies and local jurisdictions for cooperative planning of common transportation improvements,and discussion of transportation-related interests. Norm, XI-1 ATTACHMENT E TABLE OF CONTENTS Ned Summary XI-7 General Policies XI-8 Growth Management Act Requirements XI-8 Street Network XI-9 Objectives XI-9 Policies XI-9 Inventory of Existing Streets XI-11 Street System Characteristics XI-13 Existing Street Functional Classifications XI-13 Traffic Volumes and Forecasts XI-13 Level of Service Policy XI-20 Level Of Service Standard XI-21 Arterial Plan XI-23 Transit XI-30 Objectives XI-30 Policies XI-30 Existing Transit Service XI-31 Local Access XI-31 Eastside Connections XI-32 South King County Connections XI-32 East-West Connections XI-32 Downtown Transit Center XI-34 Custom Bus Service XI-34 Park-and-Ride Facilities XI-34 Future Regional Accessibility XI-35 Transit Plan XI-35 Level of Service XI-37 High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV) XI-39 Objectives XI-39 Policies XI-39 Existing HOV Facilities XI-39 HOV Plan XI-40 Level of Service XI-43 Non-Motorized Transportation XI-44 Objectives XI-44 Policies XI-44 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities XI-45 Neighborhood and Regional Access XI-47 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan XI-47 Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction(TDM/CTR) XI-50 Objectives XI-50 Policies XI-50 Existing Parking Supply and Demand XI-51 Parking Policy Review XI-53 Employers'Mode Split XI-53 TDM/CTR Programs XI-53 XI-2 ATTACHMENT E Parking Management Regulations XI-54 Airport XI-54 Objectives XI-54 Policies XI-54 Airport Facilities XI-55 Airport Activities XI-55 Airport Master Plan Relevant Documents XI-55 Airport Master Plan Implementation XI-56 Freight XI-56 Objectives XI-56 Policies XI-57 Truck Routes XI-57 Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users XI-59 Regional Accessibility XI-60 Financing and Implementation XI-61 Objectives XI-61 Policies XI-62 Transportation Program Costs XI-62 Inventory of Funding Sources XI-62 Funding Program XI-65 Funding Assessment XI-72 Mitigation Process XI-73 Concurrency Management System XI-75 Environmental and Natural Resources XI-76 Objectives XI-76 Policies XI-76 Air Quality--Implementation Plan XI-77 Improving Water Quality XI-77 Intergovernmental Coordination XI-77 Objectives XI-78 Policies XI-78 Current Coordination Activities XI-78 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions XI-80 Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan XI-80 Strategies to Address Inconsistencies XI-80 Ongoing Transportation Plan Work XI-77 Nome 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 Noriri Figure 5-1 Downtown Core Existing Parking Summary 2001 Figure 7-1 Truck Routes XI-4 • ATTACHMENT E TABLE OF TABLES Table 1.1 Renton Arterial Plan Table 4.1 Proposed Bicycle Routes Table 5.1 Central Subarea Parking Summary Table 8.1 20-Year(Transportation Program Cost Table 8.2 Source of Transportation Funds Table 8.3 City of Renton Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)2005-2010 XI-5 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 February 20, 1995. Subsequent transportation planning work and enactment of development regulations that are consistent with, and help implement,the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element have resulted in amendments (December 8, 1997,July 27, 1998, August 14,2000,and August 13,2001)to the Comprehensive Plan(and Transportation Element). Further transportation planning work by the City has resulted in the 2004 amendments,which are incorporated in this Transportation Element. As noted above,the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to create a desirable land use pattern and serve land uses with a multi-modal transportation system. This Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan comprises a set of framework transportation policies to support Renton's land use Vision and a more detailed and technical plan for implementation of the framework policies. The Transportation Element encompasses several chapters,including Street Network,Transit, High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV),Non-Motorized Transportation, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction(TDM/CTR),Airport,Freight, Financing and Implementation, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Intergovernmental Coordination. Some of the transportation policies apply to specific chapters; the policies compiled below apply to all of the chapters. XI-6 ATTACHMENT E _, those facilities within six years of the approval of General Policies new development. Policy T-1. Land use plans and regulations should Policy T-5. Land use and transportation plans 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 in capacity/forecast modeling should be used in support land use plans. estimating travel demand. Policy T-3. Transportation plans should be phased Policy T-6. Land use patterns should support concurrently with growth. 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. (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 low transportation system. Inadequate parking can increase congestion on streets as people circle and hunt for available spaces. Too much parking is an inefficient use of land and can deter transit use. A proper balance needs to be achieved between parking supply and demand. Satellite parking and shuttle services and collective structured parking are potential methods for increasing the parking supply. Note: Any references in this document to downtown parking restrictions and/or removal apply only to commuter/employee parking and not to business patron/customer parking. Growth Management Act Requirements The Growth Management Act specifies the following minimum requirements for information that is to be included in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; 2. Facilities and service needs, including: a. An inventory of air, water,and land transportation facilities and services, including transit routing, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; b. Level of service standards for the transportation system to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated, and adopted Level of Service (LOS)policy and/or standards for state facilities shall be stated in local transportation plans. c. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are �r below an established LOS standard; XI-7 ATTACHMENT E 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. hi 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. Nurri Policies XI-8 ATTACHMENT E Policy T-8. Each street in the City should be Policy T-14. Proactively work with the state and 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 HOV, Transit, Non- vacation,conforms to adopted City plans. motorized and Freight sections of this Element and of the Community Design Element.) Policy T-9.2. Street vacations should only be supported in Downtown and neighborhoods that Nia,r 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 4441,0, neighborhoods from increased through traffic while maintaining access to neighborhoods. XI-9 ATTACHMENT E Inventory of Existing Streets The existing(2003)street/highway system serving Renton is shown in Figure 1-1. The system includes two freeways: Interstate-405 and State Route-167(the "Valley Freeway"). Interstate 405 provides connections to the Eastside and Snohomish County to the north, and to I-5 and the Sea-Tac Airport area to the south. The Valley Freeway extends south from I-405 to Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup. In addition to the freeways,Renton is served by several other state highways, including SR-900(Sunset Boulevard), SR-169(Maple Valley Highway), SR-515 (Benson Highway),and SR-167 (Rainier Avenue). Each of these state highways are integral elements of Renton's internal arterial system. In addition, SR-900 provides external connections to Issaquah on the east and to the Boeing Field area and I-5 on the west. SR- 169 connects Renton to SR-18 and southeast King County, SR-515 provides the main arterial connection to the unincorporated Soos Creek area,and the Rainier Avenue section of SR-167 connects Renton with south Seattle. XI-10 ATTACHMENT E ,,i,,,,, FIGURE 1-1 RENTON STREET/HIGHWAY SYSTEM Existing Street/Highway System rte " : (2003) Legend tilikP'city Limit � —/ ) Transportation � �' _� t-'� � q� \ `/ Plan _ ) L Renton link-/AN Planning Area �1A" T' = castle rI T �x i x s x q„��ri t? �� C ilb N,,t To Salk 1Ii"�� S i :: it ' y D%34 c? ,., 2i4=11` Y/ v ',,:.4......, v ,Y'#+r ` ah ,, a, ) 4 3 -H g./%1 e dam _t.: t. _ rlik' - Ilfmi Iliit\ l It3 `H"�c� �. 7D5 a 2a�. 111 -1, �w�f�� 11 v a .,1 .� = Novilf:t.�r_� n.�;it a= `_ „A , Mhila s :':T i friirligati Dm ', Arm? AiWir iiily 1 173ii., �► w,z ^ � 14 ', ii /Alai; jai II ; I ''��-� iiir9,0Renton - • - - t fi In.7Cliitit�` i1; .11'► 1 11 - ` ., j L 1 . ,k4 NA ' I .. f ��1 .� ' ,„,..), mil „v, 0:90,4114*_. i 1:,, us A rail` ' ' ' kv,iiiti.,'Ir..-11111 al"1711 21 1/r4irabb,‘__,4*!, - 11 . _is* a l''' raf — . r pa 4 70 Ill P _ ,tiei b Ti c-!' _t__ ,' ' 1 '� , / / I --_Th noil INN I ft 7 I I ..- �� ,. _,. _� i1 _ e a XI-11 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. Other key arterials that tie together the Renton street system include Grady Way and S.W.43rd Street in the Valley,Talbot Road and Puget Drive in southeast Renton,Park Avenue and Park Drive, Logan Avenue,and Airport Way in Central Renton, and 3rd Street/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/4th Street in East Renton are examples of principal arterials. "Minor Arterials"are streets that provide links between principal arterials and collector arterials,and carry moderately high traffic volumes at less vehicle speed than on principal arterials. These arterials also connect intra-city activity centers with some emphasis on land use access. Southwest 7th Street in west central Renton and Union Avenue in northeast Renton are examples of minor arterials. "Collector Arterials"are streets that distribute traffic between principal and minor arterials and local access streets. Collector arterials include streets that provide major traffic circulation with more emphasis on land use access within commercial and industrial areas, and residential neighborhoods. East Valley Road in southwest Renton and N.E. 12th Street in northeast Renton are examples of collector arterials. Local access streets include all public streets not classified as principal,minor, or collector arterials. Local access streets primarily provide direct access to abutting land uses and are to be designed to discourage use by through traffic. These streets are identified by default on Figure 1-3 and are not listed in the legend. Traffic Volumes and Forecasts Existing(2000)and forecasted 2022*traffic volumes have been analyzed to reflect: i) latest regional and Renton land use modifications ii) latest regional transportation plans, and Renton Arterial,HOV and transit plans; iii)latest Renton mode split assumptions; and, iv)refinements to the City of Renton transportation model. 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. '41rrr Noe XI-13 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-2 ARTERIAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Arterial System Characteristics (2003) = /A • t_. � aye Legend = c- signali�a • Transportation 1 ��'4,�� Intersection r; �� ` ' Number Plan 't-f//,�i7!'lI of Lanes Z � � �-t. castle — �f1�1 11�i L� City Limit �., �� P '�� 111 �� Renton `` Not ToSok Planning Area"` Ma k If -• � lil► a ° w `r411!tt wil ,. tt 1 1 , ha I ►�� -nt ; \ a,,,,,,,„.uts..,h- t"IZEFT ... i d k1011111Ir 11141141F 1,10 i Oil WI pp!, 11 41,164,1...-...... A i %Jill . ,--4 t'* et% i p \\•ledavi Eirwm •it;*.;,.‘i k 11. I N.tt... o� m,-,„'?-'4 i..i„ilia4mifinAiiim. seelnsert 0 a-e_. n_t ! 11 . rIAR- . O,N 1I11 1 * ;.; $11.. 111 MIL V10111.1raf fil s° 110” it:W.701114WAfillnE?!.r44,41"Mills, et' ..,-iiiiii 1114`' - Mill Ilifikt effiik-Ilitak:'44 - 4.:\ - ' -11111r'''41111M L% smil.:-- - Ai I /II IPr ' 1 11-rijitiPI Nilik T------ sir, : ,L , iii 04114,0.,,,,. ...,..... .5 Emilli vreirmret. =cm 1= 11* Ille-112 4�''li�,� r0 �i I _ 4 _ Akt- _ '9101101., lInseZ 1 1II 4 ,�, 1iillI 1�111i , IN ,s, - IFNI 44 Alli ilkii,_iftgry , opt 1,-- i i 1 - Lion! , ritip.,..,..... 411511 01 III OW !„, .. 1147, 1 4,540 L 1 3Fifigl. , ,411, aiii oir ......i �■, , i litlmiril. 1- �" II��IIt ,, ■ .:1i© it ■ ■■ �i 1 ■. . ... 1/11111�� ! XI-14 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-3 *4100, ARTERIAL SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS $ I i 6 1a lb i 1'414 ,r ; 1 r ; i a o, 14 15 a ! I ii I ii r a a 1 JffiUIJ .bi i 5 5 ;t Ij1IL1J!L1Jli1� Jff I 8 i i.5 III Ili! 2 • tuis111111111114 iJl11i1: !l1J;n ¢5i#'J" a /11/11111i 5St JJs ! Oa JS>I<I1Ir1JilelIr54Ilr If I p .* IJJJ JJ t1Jhj1j iFI141I s = 1jjjii'j . . J _ dc _ l .a Jrr rr if 11.. h.51olto, i q' =id iiiiiViiiiiiiiRi 55 I I T 1 f L. J1 . if i f el# !a i41 `a•_ 1 rJ IPfrii11111;r 1�'1fi 113 11 / : aa5--: l I N4f r ■! a l!II.1l 5illl aiJ i �•jd�Y I=t fil jiJ•r t7 N. t g1¢ A 5�i{J .'lr5t3�a�gIsli ib ligi If ! iii` 5#J. .'lilij ! !'11 sla tJ:545 Ja pili #f# !-•la I= !I �liR. j J : til a . ; ri •�• •�f� J � li8lglif ibIi:li•i.•51:;3 i•S d!!r 11 !1111! 1, Y;M 1 ! 1 =•! �I;r.* =t=ES,11 !1llr!1tall1l'I I IllrlllarI'll gi L' II3I. :.SJitfifttisfteei le leeeet mat! t tiattilli a - ltii_CttlllciW{ s iiaiiit:wiiiiaiitt4s$44o44 i*O0A4AmtiiriitltodgEd'g4IWttrttt r u v �fi. ��: t , • w j =ems - r, Is4til,• 1 , --s - ormilv t , rims ., 7, /l , I isii Iiir,..,..... '�rig �j jilliria`°.19 'rrjr♦^ I r ai namiE� 1 ■ •,�R7 �Oli4r . fir - I A' firr `� �!/ tet � i- fn u.1 Y_ S_1` ^1 /h 4,ara _ n1� �/ I`� y tt �.„' - -,,,,"1.0- ' Ft 111111 `��J Ei Y` .0 a7 7 fp(9 1s !1 e fvt(ltl ,*,f,tt if %ism rano /tL 4 , � �;i - a 9`41-1111/ _1 ' C RI ir` �J f Uzi ^ gv . 6v),--.--t.,: -O�orbv ” . �� URI Erol 1o� oP� y u -, ba a E tato`„ o ,-i,-)...A11. 'f o' � 6:111 chimp" J J # V cre ---41-,'' '''''';'.;'± ' � U"" o� o o ter~%/ �r.i-i' 5 '�,-�Wit. �} , '�' - UE zE.r,t3' a 700 e'er OOp ;- 0---,---P,---, 1 N —r-'20411 di 0 0 4L.oz O�'�a t va r ,. 'r fe A J . mar- "' t) ''7.-3,41W- ' 'EA e O AiLillllllr =F:', Asa� � a e Z.�E" fi.pilissaill 114'' t `,,.1 11 Illltt l ff7 ` C 3 4�, ir,2,-..:,...71,•744 ... , ( Ark,'Lt--.weilE!ii-i .1., maw , Vo 10,"..... ribisigii. wall)(/' All tiSitir a 4 • 5rr''`''Aeriell 11.1111.1111.1 — III":4 ''-''-''' - LIA%493, 4 iiiiiiiiiis..."1111111 II C Noose XI-15 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-4 2000 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES j'k('L f •J• .,.7, :4:4';,,ti.. .,.''' ..•'.' i I III _., :w misiki It r r �`� h t �N i t y�`� �.4'An��it t r ■J l.ttc.6.I V01 ilp Ili, ‘ ,',.:!,;;:s;-,,,, ,,. ..,,,s•,-,..:,:.':*:;:''':::Y.:,:;::;':';''114%;'?3 .-. WM '-.°.. . tui t_T,r lii;'' ;tz;n 'F' � -s incso.�6=—�! ':A - III 4 sr,/ jh e d 1; 4,71,„,„;\ t..,,,„ ..,.....,,,,.„.,:...,„„,„,,,,,voi..4:;., mritzlip..-,4 if*-a l �3 , ,7I� r� —s=maids1 rliglillitil1 _ int A RN! tali\ —. �s I4rx...3.0 .\,zit \ ., n` ? — it 1 ! it e ;1 u� �_.' SIL i - •M -mg4 115,14 5,10.`s��►.r, �; Ile zi iiiim ,vrtf- ee ,,K.�� • I Boa a � . � 9 s., '�► Renton 14 ,: `�. �':,1 ,Ir.#int 1111 I '` '4\ 74111111$011111;rttle ',47 ell sh «. ,..►X11 IN ,i -41 I " I. slifi 41.3) ,,,Ntilfr , 'T T tty.;ANW4 I 6 I I illk-'‘444.... 1111 :i' IIIIII j in r ' ' 515 3. Illau, tg.55 111111Meminema -r JI - 2000 Daily Traffic Volumes s ; 1 IF ,; i ' t •-1Legend a! �� Average�� A. Daily Traffic Transportation . 7-- girAlr,9 E' i I dm,tri '-� j; a . ,.� City Limit . Plan . 1 J ' Renton c1 1 il Planning Area 'R '� XI-16 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-5 Itiow 2022 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES e.: P A'g-�:'u,,'....,--,,,,-;:..:;,:!,:,,,,,-,::,:;6,s�r r+ ' s t "`�.lk ' ! - 4V4143* dr 4 B s n+ 3, 4.6.4 ,44},V 411, Th. • -1--- - f tt , castle r a Ili i T 1 1 3 t ��.�.. Y k 19,i Fw . 11!!!1 ' � t ,.,;,..A,,741=-.., -�` — /_'"- r F WiLig A,. AA �um ata.c� 3 1, 3,,Ns y't:, Yr:P�*s j r—ya_ t�i t F 7J J * 1l Imo! Aar —+rIai1S ,1 �t SW.i�1:i►a\ in'��r" E.rJThipia. Algi 1 as 0 1 '; ( I, airmain—al...-a"..era--. -:.-,,,,,„,?,-,,,,,,,4 ii ,,,,,, w\r-eirri-uli„,...kitFliii aw. _ . al f.' i . =NE-,....._ /la iminii. re.iii• , UMW -;,.. \ tif.9 ".. 041! . Ijaraill Ilia 1 311 1 .�, r e ic,,,,..:,,, , , Amilliiiwil,wiir ji.. .siw ..w.10.30.14:11,4 ,. nenton,„:1- 111#11 1 II thimipiiir 4 4 .. pr virryieetopv157 111-: li I ill I ...,..:•484/14S-41M.7ftlagr ',Ls.\.0. 2111111P I "' % '---"ii4PrOiliAl...14:5q • ----, ill IN N 411111044 i714 iihr' ‘ A,s. 113:„.--.° ___.,_,111,..,...iii.1,v.*,, . e it fp __4,... , ,,,,....,„, , . . 4.2,,,,,,,.... " irii"..ilt-r. h., imiliko lit iug C 7 ;NZ/ ,-.1 IrIVII 11 '" MR. mall ,-6...3.i.2 -, ,..____ Ill "r is. i ir I 4 1 illr154„... "11.11.11-1111 V elh Atm ' ■r�■_s �+�.moi I. 4 ; ,AI , 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes U t.1+i - r e s�� '181 • + Legend .�I - e 1 `1:- Average rily Traffic ' Transportation " iffirill:' 1 h city Linux , Plan i Renton L. 1 In Planning Area 7".44:: XI-17 ATTACHMENT E Arterial improvements: 41101 • Puget Drive Southeast–Benson Road to 116th Avenue Southeast • Southwest 27th/Strander Boulevard Connection–Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to SR-181 • Duvall Avenue Northeast–Sunset Boulevard to City Limits • Widen Bronson Way–South 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 3`d Street–Sunset Boulevard to Edmonds Avenue N.E. HOV improvements: • Full HOV interchange at I-405/Northeast 44th Street • Add HOV lanes on I-5 –Seattle CBD to Tacoma • I-405 HOV Direct Access at Park Drive or North 8th Street • Half or full HOV interchange at I-405Benson Road or Talbot Road(SR-515) and HOV lanes on SR-515 or Benson Road South from the new HOV interchange to Puget Drive • Half HOV interchange at SR-167/S.W. 27th Street and HOV lanes on S.W. 27th Street from SR- 167 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on SR-169–Sunset Boulevard to east city limits • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on N.E. 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 3rd Street/4th Street, Talbot Road South, Southwest 43`d 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 th Airport Way/Logan Avenue NE 3–Street/N.E.4–Street North Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Suns Boulevard North(west of I-405) th S/43 Street/South Can Road/S.E. 176–Street/Petrovitsky Road Traffic volumes on the freeway system are also forecasted to increase significantly by 2022, with daily volumes of over 200,000 on most segments of I-405 and over 120,000 on SR-167 (Valley Freeway)through XI-18 ATTACHMENT E Renton. The forecasted I-405 volumes are equivalent to current volumes on I-5 at the Ship Canal Bridge, where 1-5 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 1-405 Corridor is vital for regional connections between Renton and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability. Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service(LOS)using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined using letter designations--A,B, C, D, E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow,but there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995,the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single occupancy vehicle(SOV)travel. However,because of traffic congestion in the I-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion,the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people,not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three litor 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 Italy providing regional facilities. XI-19 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 'rr00' Renton and the region. Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections,and it provides a multi-modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi-modal travel. The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following: • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and HOV travel times for the adopted Land Use(described in the Land Use Element)using the calibrated traffic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access,intra-Renton travel time to regional system,and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard(index)using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system,including State-owned facilities; and • Selecting a plan that maintains the established LOS standard. Other elements of the LOS implementation process include: • Monitoring the area to re-validate transportation plans; • Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; and • Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). Level Of Service Standard A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30- minute travel distance for SOV, HOV,and Transit as follows: 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* * Rounded XI-20 ATTACHMENT E As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle(SOV)could expect in 2002 to travel Now approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle(HOV-carpool,vanpool)could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002)is then weighted by doubling it(to 6.8 miles)to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger-carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard,presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995,was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995,this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton(1990-2010)transportation model,which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and examining the raw data, the 2002 LOS index was found to be 42. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: i)reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton,especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints(e.g. passage of Initiative 695); ii) limited implementation of Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii)higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990—2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. With the 2002 LOS index as a base,the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: Noire 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. XI-21 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 standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways (non-HSS)in the Central Puget Sound region(i.e. SR-900, SR-169, SR-515)were adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)on October 30,2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges from LOS E/mitigated(pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E)to the traditional LOS D. (Further information on LOS standards for HSS and non-HSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton's modeling estimates of Renton's projected growth, and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities. These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton's city-wide travel-time based LOS standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors,as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Renton's Transportation Element has identified SOV, HOV, and transit-oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway system. Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system,and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi-modal concept. Also,the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods,improve safety, improve business access,and are economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7. The Arterial Plan(Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also,several Tukwila,Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements,along with the Transit Plan and HOV improvements identified later in this document,provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of Service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2022. Nod XI-22 ATTACHMENT E %are FIGURE 1-6 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN : ------'-' Renton Arterial Plan (2002 to 2022) r Legend . ill filliak City Limit 1 ... , Transportation i ,-, ii.,11 lin*, .,- __ al ix INA-4, Renton Plan - _ rigs Planning Area " ''',4"149-1281111146 ' A castle Principal Arterial mum (1' i Williiiiii"c Minor Arterial aiT. ; Ali i 1 Collector Arterial — AO .1446 1== ,kiir at -.Vito\ „lb Not To Smk 4111111iitt , 1 ilifiii ' - %6 ---'4.441k ...... .. 14 rig . ... jii1111161 ,,,_- inkaiiilv 4AvAis,.• ,... iiii121111 TeWilh. i mot A , w ezz. Nur= Pi1„ lititte},49.,: -Litt.toli,t - i riam ._ /...... 1.461*: a. , n IIIE11111Ez) 1. reit 'n, ilir,-,t3wiuktni ailii I 1 .1. Wrj-.1:imeirlf_It' A , rzi,,, '.im,,,,.--iive ap _ IINI , D.cmling- .A UUNIRri:1-* '''' la icialiai: ii :a M& tinii.:4!figi 1 11 I *4'11 EILI IV h I 4) 10. --, 01.11rAZINI 1 nill ,:?"4‘P•Si P1444- -ark E.ricrA-0- I IWILEAkt,W; II ,,---.1•0ATilha.it: I rFf-NIP,;i/'' 0 ' 11.1*--.41 ,,,,,„ 0. 46., Renton ,s,11111111 ". —,----- to- - ' - , 1,1 i. ilk 1 i: 1 P I II li. 169 ... II grill k,. \7.•_ 1 _ini ripa I 1 ow am i - . V =411-kikilit- a r*‘/111r-r; t-ft-1-_,15E5 Ell;• --.Agii,II) Is..t..- W 44110.....,_...wilekt •, 1 ' \IV* fisl 5 ' II lilt thlearA ttk j ...: Elk !Ibl tt 101 il Mir 5 5 Jr' lun Wir is-M.F ot . di " - ' ' lt tkniii r1."4 4 4 I ."%i441.i all qv pais__NIIIIIIIIhr e„, ...,..A1, 181 ‘ IF All r .1 - ito0, PUI .. 0 1.4.te,le" V t , . .. III pm. !if in 1 ill i I q tili I ,...414111.1. la I MI '11 %,___A-vi !Irma! P4 e mom MMIlj . :t Mil *INV 11111.11.1 111 - - - -- XI-23 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 7th Street arterial widening/RR over crossing replacement 5. Grady Way-Main Avenue to West City Limits arterial improvements 6. Lind Avenue Southwest- Southwest 16th to Southwest 43n3 Street arterial widening 7. NE 2°d and NE 6th Street—Duvall Avenue NE to 156th Avenue SE street improvements 8. Duvall Avenue Northeast—Sunset Boulevard to East City Limits arterial widening 9. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Monster Road to SR-900 arterial widening 10. S.W. 27th Street/Strander Boulevard—SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest new arterial 11. Sunset Boulevard/Duvall Avenue NE intersection improvements 12. Rainier Avenue—Grady Way to North City Limits arterial improvements 13. Puget Drive Southeast-Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast arterial widening ,4400 14. Benson Road—South 26th Street to South 31S`Street safety improvements/ arterial widening 15. Talbot Road — Southwest 43`d to South City Limits arterial widening 16. N.E. 3`d/N.E.4th Corridor Improvements—Sunset Boulevard to East City Limits arterial improvements 17. Mill Avenue South/Carr Road intersection improvements 18. Lake Washington Boulevard.—Park Avenue North to Coulon Park Entrance arterial improvements 19. Park Ave.N./Sunset Boulevard—Garden Avenue N.to Duvall Avenue N.E. safety/mobility improvements 20. S.W. 7th Street/Lind Avenue S.W. safety improvements 21. South Renton Neighborhood Improvements street improvements 22. N.E. 8th and NE 10th Street—Union Avenue N.E.to Duvall Avenue N.E. street improvements 23. NE 4th Street/Hoquiam Avenue NE intersection improvements 24. Maple Valley Highway(SR 169)—1-405 to East City Limits safety/mobility improvements OTHER JURISDICTION PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA: 25. West Valley Highway(SR 181)/South 156th Street intersection improvements 26. West Valley Highway(SR 181)—1-405 to Strander Blvd. arterial improvements 27. Nelsen Place—South 156th to South 158th street improvements KENT: XI-24 ATTACHMENT E 28. South 196t'/192nd Street Corridor(Phase III)-East Valley Highway to SR515 new arterial 29. 80th Avenue South—South 196th to South 188th arterial widening fir+ NEWCASTLE: 30. Coal Creek Parkway(Phase 2 and 3) SE 84th Way to SE 95th Street arterial widening 31. Newcastle Way— 112th Avenue SE to 129th Avenue SE arterial widening 32. Newcastle Way/ 116th Avenue SE intersection improvements 33. 112th Avenue SE—SE 64th Street to Newcastle Way arterial widening 34. 116th Avenue SE—Newcastle Way to SE 88th Street arterial improvements 35. 112th Place SE—West City Limit to 116t Avenue SE arterial improvements KING COUNTY: 36. Duvall Avenue NE/Coal Creek Parkway—Renton City Limits to Newcastle City arterial widening Limits(SE 95th Way) 37. South 192nd Street-SR-515 to 140th Avenue Southeast arterial widening 38. 116th Avenue Southeast-Renton City Limits to South 192'hd Street arterial widening 39. 140th Way Avenue Southeast-SR-169 to Southeast 192nd Street arterial widening 40. Elliott Bridge—Jones Road to SR-169 bridge replacement 41. East Corridor Study—SR-169 to Northeast Fourth Street arterial widening 42. Carr Road/SE 176th/SE Petrovitsky—Lind Ave. S.W.to 116th Avenue S.E. arterial improvements 43. Carr Road/Benson Road(SR-515) intersection improvements 44. 140th Avenue SE/SE Petrovitsky intersection Nor improvements 45. Trans-Valley Corridor—Southcenter Parkway to SR 515 transportation improvements 46. Benson Road/South 315`Street intersection improvements WSDOT(Limited Access): 47. I-405—1-5 to SR 167 add one lane in each direction 48. I-405—SR 167 to North City Limits add two lanes in each direction 49. SR 167—1-405 to SW 431rd Street add one lane in each direction 50. I-405/SR 167 Interchange • Southbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct connection ramp • Northbound SR 167 to Northbound I-405 construct direct connection ramp • Northbound 1-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct connection ramp 51. I-405 between Lind Avenue SW and Talbot Road construct one-way frontage road in each direction with ramp connections to I-405 at ',la Lind and Talbot 52. I-405/SR 169 Interchange XI-25 ATTACHMENT E • • SR 169/North 3`d Street construct split- diamond interchange • Southbound I-405 to Eastbound SR 169 construct direct connection ramp 53. I-405/Park Avenue N Interchange reconstruct to accommodate 1-405 widening 54. I-405/N 30th Street Interchange reconstruct to accommodate 1-405 widening 55. I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange reconstruct to accommodate 1-405 widening and future improvements WSDOT(City ROW) 56. SW 43`d Street—Lind Avenue SW to Talbot Road arterial widening 57. East Valley Road—SW 16th to SW 34th Street arterial realignment 58. Lind Avenue SW—Grady Way to SW 16th Street arterial widening to accommodate frontage road and 1-405 ramps 59. Talbot Road—South Renton Village Place to South 15th Place arterial widening to accommodate frontage road and I-405 ramps 60. Mill Avenue South—Houser Way to Bronson Way convert to one-way northbound 61. Renton and Cedar Avenue Overpasses of I-405 realignment/revisions to accommodate 1-405 widening ‘44•10, 62. Sunset Boulevard—west of I-405 realignment/revisions to accommodate I-405 widening 63. Houser Way—north of North 4th Street realignment/revisions to accommodate I-405 widening 64. Lake Washington Boulevard—north of NE 44th Street realignment to accommodate I-405 widening 65. Benson Road/I-405 Overpass replacement to accommodate I-405 widening POST 2022 IMPROVEMENTS RENTON: South Lake Washington Improvements • Logan Avenue North—North 4th Street to Garden Avenue North 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): XI-26 ATTACHMENT E I-405—1-5 to SR 167 add one lane in each direction I-405/SR 167 Interchange N"" • Northbound SR 167 to Southbound 1-405 construct direct connection ramp East Valley Road at SW 34th Street construct new ramps connecting to SR 167 1-405 at North 10t Street construct direct connection ramps to and from the north I-405 at SR 169 • Northbound 1-405 to Houser Way construct direct connection ramp • Southbound Houser Way to Southbound 1-405 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 16th Street East Valley Road—SW 16th to SW 34th Street arterial widening aim° XI-27 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1-7 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Arterial Plan Improvements F • 'i' G- • irE it Legend ` cityUte« I / 0 Transportation E-• �/�© _� IMI IP Renton ,OONIAN (:��" i7► 4 , tle Planning Area Plan f f ® "„ �� 7r By 2022 C■ �� III ��p1114-zrair- Na To Sok oftplik . - - _ - -- " -_-1 r-wwww ' ' ' Nik,OP:--.;,, �� IID • I ,� `1 ��f9V 6 i ■,\111.11 3,-,- - aos.„„1 6� --gel -g O I`.': ti i rka ' +.pi- :\ 119111111111 X000 VIr•; � ,sI.■_■: \f-`17-,a4011;g4P---.„,"-z,„,,edr X11 \�mezio•riro '11111-----ii �, � •�rfillam M 16 *lair Ni.us.il, pi /,/ p, liRisalritio sr in: Armr1:740frvir ••• f olvemb .,mr.,4i1=L;tutir.d154411'4 0 m p Nimerma I . .. ,,,1.- +r VAiRe ton ! :' i tot• i-,;,€,i . , - , -irAiiitrolljp4 21 II L �� ■ an 1111 Ilial ,,,„„....... •• _ ti -1111%106'L --"•11:Vgitli':.filiille 0 M to,• -t's. ti gitlame ...., riit'Pare,i Piltimo,..k. ...k 1,-.. .1054, ily Flip 4- 4rnii,refaL4411. 11 111.11-fizi ili .1 4 va im ' Ar (p` 181 Hl0 ,iit! � ' ` : lit jrawr #.41t111” , i i 1 11 0.- .11-4:.; 1, 0, ...c: kibitigimo? itai ® r4nP"----igiNitag !III III a 0, 1 1.11 0 ,ffitplii Iv e4 ir _ Inwil.,5, linikw4suor Na .g iiri ii: st_ ■s..II.IIIIV! t. Nortie XI-28 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 "m'` jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area to plan Policy T-24. The City should support development 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. XI-29 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 Ned 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: TDM/CTR Section; Land Use Element/Urban Center Section; and Community Design Element. The residential and centers policies of the land use plan also support transit through establishment of residential densities and a mix of residential and commercial uses in centers that can support public transportation. Specific treatment of the routes and stops for a transit system in downtown Renton are addressed in the Downtown policies of the land use plan. However,it is expected that such stops would serve commercial activity centers,which would complement the commercial and residential activities envisioned in the centers and residential policies of the land use plan. Existing Transit Service Bus service in Renton is currently provided by the King County Transit Division(Metro),the agency responsible for transit service in King County, and Sound Transit,the agency responsible for regional transit service. Figure 2-1 identifies the bus routes operating in Renton in 2003. A variety of Metro service is provided in the city ranging from internal Renton routes such as Route 110,the Renton "Rush"circulator route,to regional service to downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue. Sound Transit's service includes express routes operating to SeaTac and Bellevue(Route 560), to Auburn and Bellevue(Route 564)and to Federal Way and Bellevue(Route 565). While not serving the city directly, Sound Transit's Sounder commuter rail service stops at the nearby Tukwila station. During weekday peak periods, Sounder trains currently serve several locations in Pierce County and South King County as well as downtown Seattle(King Street Station). The following provides an overview of the 2003 transit network serving Renton. Local Access The route structure and service headways for Renton routes provide basic overall service coverage. One of the local,community-oriented routes,Route 148,provides late evening and Sunday service. Route 105 provides evening service in the Highlands. Service connections in the Highlands area are reduced in the early evening periods; however,Route 240 provides evening and weekend service in the Highlands. In addition,Route 110, which was intended to operate as a local circulator, is available only during the peak periods and includes service connection to the Tukwila commuter rail station. XI-30 ATTACHMENT E Eastside Connections Several Metro and Sound Transit routes provide connections to downtown Bellevue and other Eastside `fir►, communities. These connections include Bellevue(non-downtown)and Factoria. Direct service is currently provided between Highlands and Factoria via Metro Route 240. Route 140 provides 30-minute service during the day Monday through Saturday plus hourly service in the evenings. South King County Connections The baseline travel demand patterns indicate a substantial level of demand between Kent and various locations in Renton,particularly the Green River Valley. While several Metro and Sound Transit routes connect Kent with Renton,the service is focused on the downtown Renton. The Green River Valley area is accessed at the western edge of this district. East-West Connections Metro Route 140 currently connects Burien and Renton. Sound Transit Route 560 provides a connection between SeaTac and Renton. East-west connections to the Green River Valley area are particularly important given the current level of travel demand to this area from locations such as Tukwila and Burien. The following routes serve a variety of markets: • Routes 101 and 106, Downtown • Route 240, Bellevue • Route 140, Burien • Route 169,Kent • Route 148,Local Renton Downtown Renton Transit Center The Downtown Renton Transit Center is the hub of transit service in Renton. The Transit Center is served by regional and local service provided by Sound Transit and the King County Transit Division(Metro), and acts as `low both a destination and a major transfer center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center is located between South Second and South Third Streets on Burnett Avenue South and on a new connection between Logan Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South. The facility has been carefully integrated with other planned developments in the downtown area. Custom Bus Service King County Transit,as of 2003, operated one custom bus route(952)serving Renton. This route operates one trip in the peak hour in the peak direction serving areas with significant employment density. Renton custom bus service originates at the Auburn Boeing plant, and serves Kent, Renton and terminates at the Everett Boeing plant. Park-and-Ride Facilities Renton has one dedicated transit park-and-ride lot facility within the city limits: the South Renton Park-and- Ride lot located at South Grady Way and Shattuck Avenue South. This park-and-ride lot has 370 spaces and is used at capacity. There are four park-and-ride lots in the Renton planning area which are leased by King County Transit for commuter parking. One of the lots is in downtown Renton, at the First Baptist Church at Southwest Sunset Boulevard and Hardie Avenue Southwest. It has 21 spaces and is used at 19%capacity. Another lot located in the Renton Highlands at Saint Matthew's Lutheran Church on Northeast 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue Northeast has 146 spaces and is at 29%capacity. A third lot is located at the East Renton Shopping Center at Southeast 128th Street and 164th Avenue Southeast, east of the Renton City limits in unincorporated King County. This lot has 21 spaces and is at 29%capacity. The fourth leased lot, also located in unincorporated King County, is at the Nativity Lutheran Church at 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 177th Street. This lot has 25 spaces and is at 60%capacity. *me The Boeing Company has an employee-only park-and-ride lot located in the vicinity of North 8th Street and Garden Avenue North. This lot has a capacity of approximately 100 stalls. XI-31 ATTACHMENT E • The City has leased 200 parking spaces in the downtown parking garage to King County Metro Transit as a park and ride facility. XI-32 ( ( a q / 1 • �. ,, ,� ,,..,sum-- ,, ,,..�, t a-- a -,� �C .t •' .1::•,. \r• •4 .;5}' irll,,r""'s' j<tt YQfS[ \ 3a yp'�cs�IdA�4# w .�' Cil IN a( ' "r•;sr.; ' i' S�tt yarr,v� �� rC hurl' tailor A ?Y..•• +� •\.} rowanY•;) r' s'.,v.. rstm . ' ilkt� t' 'ti ,$):f ' ;,I` K;nt , r Erpta.x,v �w�/... ��t til 1 1YaotICwYJ �'� .v . g p�+S l.r'!'+`�.'y,.� ,'41�� rs' , 'r�g�m"11 t',n"- ✓`1 co �� irk+m N.rAZ*.....•7�i' m?Ii1` I a Al sW€iY -m s'i iftt �t,+;'Y•v.A, ;reiz-c . $ i _ a+% � t� `2.�ry'�i��\ "�Mt °�* �, C ice, w / ' CID TL 1 _ H AY 41601 Igii-ip • Nom= :r. '�. ••t. r:u4. :; P o ........w C) i limipOrcl:. . .,., J..‘l•Altio.',. •i,,''• iimgfigt t• � Ems.ffirgove 1-1 t>VD- .0 .4 ;••--.;, (14 t er.�r t$ -3 q•• . q w4^J`friary W4 ed:. , .. , �1 4,T ,„ !,! ,I J IA i cr, N,,♦ ib. 0-3 I i. INmp, � 7 as � `.-.,;�*r" t't119E s<" /'� � _ ,E VV--1�r^•ize� ro `�:... Iii �, , ♦G 13.vim ��p�'�Li4'i d " �'•'.`+.j ' '.v, �!1'�t4 '�s�p'�'� � FN � "�~/ dow _$ .� • ��7tt �p •li-m ..0 1'L7RRi:11. •1R�t�� •pD t�,� ,,�1 .� lie .•1., Y e- Con raj t� \C..:::: G tom. �lLR'J• ti ,i.,.,: �C` `i'_R • •"1+ ,,,,,,,SP,',' ,,... 't4,a•'.`` `<�,'�c`. .\.,.s\ ::,.h' .�C.\\\\\:��y\\\av�tt♦ o l�, .G' , �,\ a !ii'.; •1,'a•'S i^�•' 4 A/ .'7YYfi'+:5�`\\\\\\\w�:.:,,w,... ,,-,-, '\\�\\\•,"`\ w\.` i •4 cSR«;i' I'� y'� � �� is p " �.. ..,•••••••, ....,,,t,.......:,-..„,...,p\ � ,✓ t..._ ' .i d '4: `i tt , ' �' ' ,......i••.,--4-0, .i••.•--4-0,, 't,e'• �w. <,. \\. r . s•.-::' \fir•.FEr♦...-...\ 04' '�' y'4 o l\i�st, i.1� '"'i hA�r 'T � �� \.p��.\\�:..„\ti.\` ��C* }�`<��\�\,\\•C <��:•a;. h/-�i i' :�M�.1., t°,°^a y�; '. «'T^'!7 1..;'�1,(�' ,•}; .r• prri.•��.� � N`.., .`. ' HI.-"'._"Q1� \\\\\�' �\e�\�::...+`'\�, A •n• i.' `t�CS+ H��`^'„�•�- i•••y •( •r..1, M\`\\\�` ;\2~i�Qiflt ��.... t \v \��\:+^�� \\ Z ERNR`�i .y9I<:.�N �.�yr �r;ti ,��a\te�3RRL}i�.:Ritil//„8 F \��`\� •\� 1Z :q}.;3ti,CPre '�j'Li+l,` \, k*\i `�:ti:`, \� �\\„• [ t1R R. �. \:♦.ges".,.,i, ,s. ;, \\, fillifilififililififill l' ›.. i :.i'' j� .'� 'ti. + i\\��\�,\\t`r1' Q0411,11111— dg]IlflEf#fEdfd#FE#i�#if##f ii 1 i 0. 4f. •• s p� �\\\:\\ti p`.`\` �•s' r! t .r.'• .. ` �`1�rlf�`Y ® T oR 1111u11E111r111, ATTACHMENT E Future Regional Accessibility The long range transit and rideshare service concept for the King County Transit Division(Metro)service area ; is described in the Long Range Policy Framework for Public Transportation(adopted October, 1993). The Framework establishes policies that will guide future planning and development efforts,and it identifies possible policy implementation strategies. More specific near term transit improvements are outlined in the King County Transit Division's Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007. On May 31, 1996 the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority(Sound Transit)approved a 10-year plan, Sound Move, which is illustrated in Figure 2-2: The Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan. Voters approved a funding package to implement the plan on November 5, 1996. The approved Sound Transit Plan includes the following regional improvements: light rail transit,commuter rail transit,HOV expressway development, regional express bus service, and community connection improvements. Sound Transit improvements which will directly serve Renton include HOV access improvements, express bus service,and local connection improvements. In addition,commuter rail running between Seattle and Tacoma will stop at a station serving Renton and Tukwila, sited adjacent to the Boeing Longacres property. Efficient transit connections will be provided between the Downtown Renton Transit Center and the Commuter Rail Station. Sound Transit provides regional express bus service, with three routes serving Renton. As noted previously, express routes serve SeaTac, Bellevue,Auburn and Federal Way. To ensure quick access to the Downtown Renton Transit Center,the Sound Move plan identified direct access HOV ramps on I-405 in the vicinity of North 8th Street and needed arterial HOV improvements in Renton to improve transit speed,reliability and ridership of transit services. Before constructing any arterial HOV improvements, Sound Transit will evaluate alternative improvements to benefit transit speed,reliability, and access. The City of Renton is coordinating with Sound Transit to ensure that commensurate transit service and improvements to improve transit speed, reliability and ridership in Renton will be provided should I-405/HOV direct access ramps not be implemented. Transit Plan Transit improvements are needed to provide the facilities and services necessary to support and encourage increased transit use and provide an alternative to single occupancy vehicle travel. The transit facilities and services outlined in the Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element are needed to provide adequate access between the regional transit system and Renton residential and employment areas,and to provide an attractive transit alternative for travel within Renton. As described in the previous section,an element of the regional system is the Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail line. Access to Renton is provided by a station located on the Renton-Tukwila border between Longacres Way and Strander Boulevard. This station is currently served by local bus transit and will additionally be served by local, and possibly regional,bus transit,including fast connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. �rrfr XI-34 ATTACHMENT E . FIGURE 2-2 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM • Sound Move The Regional Transit System Plan _ 004g%o �f ►o 15:-,,,,,,,...„, .3•..., -,,,-.,--,.,,,,,,,,,,..-- 14; i .,&...„...... • ,,,;k,... 't,,Y,:,:.k'.)-'7 7''...•'•, c . - i, `., Mfr F F �, � �il l: i II.; Ilit\\ 1 ~ I i� . _ . .. J./10r N . r Yl /, t.'a.krV I& t• I, — Nfrwls '-- =---c V— Swwivraht 1 —O� Iid light ma ` - • p r \Mil .�O SunwKr• ....ow men w, p� ©M a sae ®Tarok Center v ffer SW -.. i p A105.....oatewd awfw • jonxl'IMnsit 81“cat iiR ; Plan low, - — --- — - --- XI-35 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. ,fir 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. *004 XI-36 • ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 2-3 RENTON TRANSIT PLAN lame :. , r lm tut -" z- rr .&�uu� Ill ti. OR I k4' yT VI` i #: '.' , . eat f`ter.. ilir : astle ri.,' a Six 3 6¢ � ,f Ci ;: tT R ik M: :4,%-„,--g.*wk. 6 _ i 41 f u rt �� a %kFN 'DAL �^�. ��, NaToSolt :,�r►� :k 3 -k•is , mmi NI I►" C lib f. 5 { i E fl i .i�n�.rw �� n_ 1 > c �'io J r iii !me Leljr•Vit wrippie \ s 110 � SR orii,..ti i 111 I1 ,...ii. .! leo ii,„ kekmw AB. ftkiiiirmr701,...1- ;,, lad f be.,,,ti. . , ..,__.,..i....-- ii .461 r. jrf 5 -r• - 6 M.' II "'S,:' j ii - j L‘..-..-15 .14,,,I.,. � � ��..n • ,,� I► ,a, i ,k s ,r,.:II In ,L i LAI b, \ 1 IMIMPILIfird 0 111 , ' ` - > ,.,4 til 111111111V ll L'/a�w 414 T- In ,II Sri 1111 15.144W ILI "" 61114 --1:41: Nillti a.,„ 11 to-L.,Iner_ ictv, Am 04 11 so Pii ., It .x/111MI �AiRwooD ili...,,_.._ ' 11 1 Renton 2002-2022 Transit Plan- Conceptual l.. / Legend i es T i I City Limit r r 1 Renton Planning Area . ransportatio t4f 1 ---- Regional Commuter Rail O Mil / •, High Opacity Transit&Other Plan _ Regional Transit Routes ti 111if OLocal Transit Routes err■ 1ra'`fir =. WI Transit Hub Pack&Ride w j al XI-37 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 '.4rod 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. 44th southbound on-ramp. Each of the queue jump lanes has a 2+designation. XI-38 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 Department of Transportation in order to provide regional HOV service to the I-405 and SR 167 corridors. To-date HOV lanes have been completed on I-5 between the Seattle CBD and Puyallup and on SR 167 between 15th Street NW in Auburn and I-405 in Renton. The City has identified arterial HOV corridors based on the policies listed previously. These corridors include many of the principal arterials through central Renton and state routes throughout the city. The Renton HOV Plan includes the provision(over the next 20 years(2002 to 2022)of the HOV facilities shown in Figure 3-1. The Plan includes HOV facilities,in the form of HOV lanes or intersection queue jumps, in the Renton corridors listed below: • Rainier Avenue/Airport Way • SR-169(Maple Valley Highway) • Park Drive North/N.E. Sunset Boulevard • SR-515 or Benson Road • S.W.27th Street �rrr XI-39 1 r) r . iipti � � , x l "�1� Figure 3-1 ��+�. z ' "'� ��"e,�ee Map Index of HOV Improvements ��`�•� ITV 11111 ,..50 ryt " 111 Improvement lo, P Pv i� Add HOV Lanes p ovement Limits wL.,;-.... ��k\ 1. SR 167-SB HOV Lane Extension North to I-405 ��IIIIh {„ � F » �.• ,,pputs N _ �`' Add HOV Ramps l111► � ` 2. 1-405/SR-167 1a1��1 .1111.--.., half interchange Not To Sege � i�i1111 ! �� n t i NB SR-167 to NB 1-405 C '114:31 [t ill'''.' ' S8 L405 to SB SR-167 IlitiTI 111 r�N�* IF�jR Iii i m �_ p aaa II►,�� i�Q`� 1!�1 :a nr"'�. 3. SM671at SB on-rampHOV s, I �� ! iI pig+ "a t bypass lanes t"-at1�` \'1�*a+, E ��l�i ? p"y. ,'` SW 43rd NB on-tap 1 !legA nia 51 _', iilaIV s • New HOV Interchange 11111 : ft"" .F ars �X he 4, I 4(?5/North 8th full interchange �` 1 - t f ,roRaa.,,� . S. SR 16/SW 27th St '��►116 1Ji111:— �;j� t; 11 6. 1405 E 44th St half interchange H 1"11 Iowan' ��,\kill s h/3 I Oil f ,"",t°� full interchange a 1 X11 P 1�is l� at� (ri �. ,� V~06ii►�t 11 t �r rye ,,�a b� YIDIJIC X Klan1�""`'kT" id' 1 �° T f `- sin Arterial HOV Lanes or Intersection Queue Jump 0 c)�-r „ -'��'�`1�0RE . I� m1�11 7. SR 169 p y c ' Allyp iie- iea xe• , ,,,.. 8. Park Dr/Sunset B Sunset Blvd to 140th W SE t —-,, 1 (Yd Garden Ave to East city limit O i r Caene 9. Rainier Ave/Attpott Way SR 900 to Logan Ave N cif,-,,,,u,'t C vt -°I ! '''',„../endJl� 10. SW 27th St SR 167 to Oa�cesdale Ave SW Ill Ip 1,* �t t,',11. 111 �O �p� 1' 11. SR 515 Ig05 to Souza city limit �' W A ti 61� il �4 priellitt4 ,unCNr k ._ r- Transit Corridor i 4'1' . '��I�" �,in `a� �` 12. Rainier,or other streets Grady Way to Park Ave WE r�.w.il�S 11�.� ,``r, under evaluation/S'3td/BumeN,,, nil „, j �` \Illl��a e - h_ 6th '' 0,” = r _ ,, Renton HOV Plan (2002-2022r411111 t i moi ! i VILE • ) II A �' � �—�(►��• �'�L Le end j11-ii Iklri � �1ti1WI 9 City Limit � Freeway HOV Lanes �� , ! Li- . • Renton Arterial Transportation 11111111111111 ..i• f lil'� ; Planning Area HOV Treatmentsmon .,,,, �!IF �IIIII / .. . t !� leas- Plan i tssiiii... s � '..:t 'g HOV only AIL - moi Interchange ATTACHMENT E In addition to arterial HOV improvements,construction of direct access HOV interchange ramps to provide _w, connections to the I-405 HOV lane system is planned at N.E.44th Street,N. 8th Street, and on the SR-167 system at S.W. 27th Street. These ramps will provide vital HOV access and enable efficient transit movements in the City to support regional and local transit service consistent with the objectives and policies described in the Transit Chapter of this Transportation Element. The HOV Plan also includes a transit corridor in Central Renton: S. 3`1Burnett/Logan/N. 6th comprise the northern portion of the corridor and in the southern portion South Grady Way,Rainier Avenue,Lind Avenue, Hardie Avenue and Main Avenue South are under consideration to complete the corridor. (Other potential north-south streets south of S. 4th Street, i.e. Shattuck Avenue S.,Burnett Avenue,Williams Avenue and Wells Avenue are not under consideration as a result of the City's decision, in response to significant public input,to locate the southern portion of the transit corridor outside of the South Renton residential area.) A north-south transit corridor is an important element of a transit plan that supports Renton's policies to: 1)encourage local and regional transit agencies to provide a high level of transit service to the Downtown Renton Transit Center by improving transit travel time, accessibility and reliability; and,2)provide an attractive and effective alternative mode of transportation to the single occupant vehicle that contributes to a reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution in Renton's Urban Center. Also,the Strander Boulevard improvement identified in the Arterial Plan,Table 1.1, will serve transit vehicles as well as SOV and HOV traffic and is planned for implementation coordinated with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. Several of the above HOV/transit improvements have been identified for funding under the regional Sound Transit plan approved by voters. Under this regional high capacity transit plan,Renton is designated to be served by the regional express bus system. Sound Transit has evaluated if there are capital facilities that could be constructed in Renton which would improve reliability and travel time for transit and HOV movement sufficient to warrant Sound Transit's investment. Sound Transit has identified the Central Renton north-south ,oe transit corridor improvements and HOV direct access interchange improvements at North 8th Street as beneficial capital investments. The improvements in the Renton HOV Plan, along with improvements in the Arterial Plan and Transit Plan, provide a multi-modal transportation plan that meets the 2022 level of service standard for the projected travel demand from land use development envisioned by 2022. HOV improvements in the I-405 corridor that have been identified beyond 2022 are listed below. These improvements would help to support future land use development. If these improvements were implemented by 2022 they could help maintain Renton's 2022 level of service standard. I-5/I-405 Interchange • Northbound I-5 to Northbound I-405 construct direct connection ramp • Southbound I-405 to Southbound I-5 construct direct connection ramp • Southbound I-5 to Northbound I-405 construct direct connection ramp I-405/SR 167 Interchange • Northbound SR 167 to Southbound I-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 'ikrr►' 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- XI-4 1 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. 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. kvid XI-42 ATTACHMENT E NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 'fir, 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. 'ow Policy T-38. Obstructions and conflicts that Policy T-40. Bicycle storage facilities and restrict pedestrian movement should be parking should be encouraged within XI-43 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 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. 44110 Although the City Code requires that sidewalks be provided on all streets,many of the public streets were constructed before the existing code was enacted, and as a result,numerous roadways are currently without sidewalks. Streets needing sidewalks include both local and arterial roadways. The City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study addresses the sidewalks and walkways within the City. This report identifies a priority roster to construct"missing" sidewalk/walkway sections throughout the City. The priority evaluation system is based on four sidewalk users: 1)school children,2)elderly persons, 3) transit riders,and 4)all other users. Except within business districts,cyclists may use existing sidewalks,provided that they yield the right-of- way to pedestrians. As of 2003,Renton has a combined bicycle/pedestrian facility along Garden Avenue North(North 6th Street to North 8a'Street)and North 8`h 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 8h Street), and on NE 4th Street(east of Duvall Avenue NE). Renton is located at the crossroads of a regional system of existing and proposed trails. Existing trails within the City include the Cedar River Trail System and a portion of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Regional Systems with proposed access to the City include the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail. Figure 4-1 shows the existing(2003)non-motorized facilities within Renton and the nearby regional routes. *01111110004 XI-44 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 4-1 EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES Existing Non-Motorized Facilities ..4 `` i (2003) z� �� tiTIO Legend 4--' Trans ortati•on s4 +city Limit � � P _ F �� `, ' � Renton Plan '' f:wry Planning Area `"�' 9. ;= astle 1 Ipg. ism FA,�E• . 111 • N„,To Sole 6 Iii r ! Min ; :. ��l `�..�-., aos� �{��r�,�i� — �, . sw iamb �ii� � is .,.„. .... ...., ' .3,4N, --:, . ' . imp 4. RUM"for I,,,,&1~•,SII , € 4r. end ► ' !Y ' ��Y�=�_�� ems.. IA hill G1... � �Y � r"1 �l Ili �! !� iungam� 111112;==,‘,Thririrr �111 , 1`''�d � O 11 �.! 4 t «I! i� r►r ice, .�. "°'111""f4 a fro i! �' s�a -� �� nron t iiiiiiE 71 ,c4N., ,....„--... .,.-v..„.1/4.4,, , wib hva mill irr HI Altilla . ,- 5,iiiimikl• mie\sh (1,. ) �lliiJ� 15 ,,1 N. ��. 4 We. IDA_ gt r' ( Blcyc Facilites ,4 1. TaybrAvdllatdie Ave mosi "hi; '°7 2. Lake A:r/t'obin$tktir5-6,ti�,l•i wl.„6� �� . Washingtn Loop i � �� ... � 4. Southwest 16th Ili m. 5. NE 4th St Ave SW mr'. ,ca '��f.11 6. ollAveNE$, � iirmiltill rs �� = 7. NE 4dt Street Mixed Facilities —selt — " -( -gena 10GedaritiverIUrban �) tWan=„ IndustrialZoneI . Rainkr Ave�i t2. Grccn River Trailt 13. InmrurbanTtaB�� 14. Garden A a.Tail 5< 5l5. Sptingbrook Trailfpralrjali m 1 IT ' _, 1-:____ .tee , No i i ■=IL 11 .,- Pedestrian FaclUtiest,oll l- 20. Cedar River Trail i mai. .. ,. ___ iii i ...... ,............ Iiiime XI-45 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, 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 '410 ; cyclists and pedestrians. Consequently, many of the potential annexation areas do not provide protected non-motorized inter-neighborhood connection. This is not the case in Fairwood,however,where sidewalks have been installed throughout the development. Another important consideration is the bicycle route connection to regional cycling corridors. The regional corridors,to which the Renton bicycle routes should connect, include the Interurban, Christensen/Green River, Lake Washington Loop, Sammamish, and Soos Creek Trails. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan The City, per the Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study,will construct sidewalks/walkways at"missing locations." In some areas, sidewalks will be constructed along each side of the street. Because of physical constraints such as side slopes and roadway grades,or minimal expected pedestrian usage, some locations will have pedestrian/cyclist facilities constructed on only one side of the street. Sidewalk facilities will be constructed as part of a prioritized installation program. Additional non-motorized facilities will be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvement projects and as part of the Transit Improvement Program. Current annexation area roadways without sidewalks will be added to the Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study after annexation into the City. Sidewalk improvements on roadways could be improved through local improvement district(LID)and capital improvement projects(CIP). Table 4.2 lists routes that have been identified as important bicycle transportation elements. Along roadways designated as bicycle routes,roadway or shoulder widening may accommodate cyclists'needs. XI-46 ATTACHMENT E These improvements could be added when roadway improvement projects are constructed or implemented as individual improvement projects. Further review by the City of Renton,in cooperation with citizen groups,will be necessary to determine which of the projects listed in Table 4.1 are selected for development. King County is pursuing development of bicycle facilities outside of the Renton city limits. Four routes leading into Renton have been identified in the King County Non-motorized Plan: th • 116-Avenue Southeast(Edmonds Avenue Southeast)(Southeast Petrovitsky Road to South 157—Street) • 140 Place/Avenue Soitheast(Southeast 192-Street to Southeast Renton-Maple Valley 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. *core XI-47 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 3`d Street) Hardie/Rainier Bypass Northwest 3`d(Rainier Avenue North to Hardie Avenue Northwest) Hardie Avenue(Northwest 3m 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 4th Street Sunset Boulevard North to East City Limits XI-48 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. Nkilme 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-49 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 %god 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 Downtown Core report. Ongoing transportation planning work will include expanding the parking study area,possibly citywide,if needed for the refinement of parking policies and guidelines. NIS XI-50 • ATTACHMENT E 44400, FIGURE 5-1 DOWNTOWN CORE EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY 2001 ^ N LA__I 1 `• Airport Wa / `♦ L N 2nd • 127 43 13 eQ ‘ �s 1 WM ems` sf - obin Ave S - 140 �' • 1 +11 151 N. -. t `• • ll 32 > a 124 N . 1+1-A n +30 > 36 1 47 I a♦55 n U - 184 t20 1 I ' 79 _ +66 1 56 • 1 Niue -14,is COO NW 1 . .• 78 . 40..: • 1 r. -- - S d St 1—" I ••201 100 0111111 +10 +8211 108/ 11 , ,i L—._.–r_ "-�:- f I :uLi $ 4I/ d 1 „ II II .1 i Downtown Core Existing --- -G.- Parking Summary 2001 2055 at-StreeUPaddng .�"..... tl.1.._.....«..� . . +387 On-Street Paddt."7..."«,===1* nq ....fti 'err' ,-•tom""" 2442 Total Pa h u g Spaces "w..ryr�•rr•w-• F�Mr � 4.a XI-51 • 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 , 4100 northernmost tip,north of May Creek, is located in the East King County zone. The base year value for single occupant vehicle trips for both the South and the East King County zone is 85%. While this figure is not an exact mode split figure, it is representative of the degree to which employees of all employers in Renton are accessing their worksites by single occupant vehicle or using other modes. The assumption is made that the SOV rate is 85%,and the rate of trips made by other modes is 15%. TDM/CTR Programs The City has adopted a CTR Ordinance and a CTR Plan(February 1993). The ordinance outlines the manner in which and the schedule with which employers located within the City of Renton are required to design and implement commute trip reduction programs at their worksites. The CTR Plan is a summary document that describes the City's implementation approach. As stated in the Plan,the City has contracted with Metro to perform certain activities, including employer notification, employer assistance,and program review. The Plan summarizes the CTR goals and establishes the CTR zones mentioned above. It explains the circumstances and procedures for employer appeals of CTR program administrative decisions. The Plan also states the City's commitment to implementing a CTR program for its own employees,to complete the parking policy review mentioned above, and to report on an annual basis to the state regarding progress towards meeting CTR goals. In the past, the City, with the support of Metro,has developed Transportation Management Programs (TMPs) for new residential, commercial, and office developments. These TMPs have usually been put in place through SEPA agreements. At some point in the future,the City may consider adopting a developer- based Transportation Demand Management ordinance(with site design and other requirements)to complement the employer-based CTR ordinance and its employer worksite requirements. XI-52 ATTACHMENT E Parking Management Regulations Parking regulations are specified in Section 4-4-080 of the Renton Municipal Code. The regulations include requirements for new construction of parking including landscaping, screening, layout,paving, markings, and wheel stops. They also include requirements for size and amount of parking according to the land use activity involved. Ongoing transportation planning work will include refinement of criteria for locating park and ride lots serving residential areas to address factors such as the intensity of development in adjacent areas, the level of traffic congestion in the areas,proximity to arterial streets, and opportunities to buffer lots from living areas. Also, standards for construction of parking garages will be reviewed to address minimization of land area and the amount of impervious surface. AIRPORT Renton's Airport is more than a transportation facility. It is also a vital element to Renton's commercial and industrial economy,providing aircraft services, manufacturing support, flight training, and other airport activities. The Airport Chapter of the Renton Transportation Element is implemented by the 2002 Airport Business Plan and the Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport. The intent of the objectives and policies is to support increased aviation activities and appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts when possible. (See also the Airport Compatible Land Use section of the Land Use Element.) Objectives The Airport Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-P: Promote and develop local air transportation facilities in a responsible and efficient manner and recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique, valuable,and long-standing public transportation facility within the region. T-Q: Maximize available space on the airport site for uses that require direct access to taxiways and runways such as storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities. T-R: Continue operation of the Airport as a Landing Rights Airport,ultimately providing permanent inspection facilities to the U.S. Customs Service. Policies Policy T-52. Support the land base and seaplane Policy T-54. Lease airport property for aviation- base activities. Acknowledge that there are related uses that create jobs and expand the City's certain costs to the community associated with tax base. the existence of the Renton Municipal Airport, such as noise generation,but recognize that these Policy T-55. The Renton Municipal Airport costs have historically been accepted by the provides the only publicly-owned seaplane community in exchange for the economic and facility in the area and, therefore, the northern transportation-related benefits and the civic shoreline of the airport should be restricted to prestige that are also associated with the airport. seaplane access. Policy T-53. Promote and develop airport Policy T-56. Develop appropriate land use plans facilities and services for all wheeled and float- and regulations for structures and vegetation equipped aircraft, owners,pilots,and passengers within the airport's runway approach zone. (See in a manner that maximizes safety, efficiency, Airport section of the Land Use Element, lta"" and opportunity for use. Objectives LU-E,LU-F,LU-G and Policies LU- 19—LU-30.) XI-53 • ATTACHMENT E Airport Facilities Nia The Renton Municipal Airport is a major general aviation airport in the Puget Sound area. The Renton Municipal Airport is formally designated as a Reliever Airport in the Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Regional Airport System Plan. The airport is owned by the City of Renton and is located in the northwest corner of the city,bounded generally on the east by the Cedar River,on the west by Rainier Avenue North, on the south by Airport Way,and on the north by Lake Washington(see Figure 1.1). The Airport consists of approximately 165.46 acres. It is oblong in shape,and has one runway with two parallel taxiways with concrete and blacktop surfaces and surface water drainage. The runway,running southeast to northwest, is 5,379 feet long and 200 feet wide,with a 340-foot displaced threshold at the south end. It is equipped with medium intensity runway lighting,runway end identification lighting(REIL), and precision approach path indicators(PAPI). Taxiways are lighted,and there is a rotating beacon,a windsock,and a non-directional radio beacon. The Federal Aviation Administration operates a contracted Air Traffic Control Tower during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. May 1 through September 30 and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. October 1 through April 30. Approximately 115,000 landings and take-offs per year take place at the Airport,making it the seventh busiest airport in the State of Washington. Contiguous to the Renton Airport is the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base. Landings and take-offs from the water are not recorded,but during the summer months the seaplane base is one of the busiest in the Northwest. Airport Activities The Renton Airport serves general aviation demand generated by Renton,as well as by other communities generally within a 30-minute driving time(e.g.Bellevue to the north, Issaquah to the east,Kent to the south, and Seattle to the northwest). The concept of"general aviation" includes all aviation uses except scheduled commercial passenger airline servicesand military operations. Consequently,nearly all of the aviation operations at Renton Airport are those of general aviation, including the flights of the transport-class aircraft produced by the adjacent Boeing plant. General aviation uses are both personal and revenue- producing,the latter category including business,charter,and flight instruction. The seaplane base provides facilities only for small general aviation types of aircraft(both personal and revenue-producing). Aircraft services available at the Airport include aircraft maintenance and service, fuel, flight instruction, aircraft charter and rental, and aircraft storage,both hangared and open. Fixed base operators(FBO's), which are aviation-oriented businesses offering a variety of services and products to aircraft owners and operators,provide these services to the aviation public. Airport Master Plan and Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan 1997 Airport Master Plan Update A 1997 update to the original 1978 Master Plan was approved by the City Council in August 1997. A primary purpose of the 1997 update was to determine the existing and future role of the airport and to provide the City with information and direction in the future planning and continued development of the ,40104 XI-54 ATTACHMENT E • 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 err developments and improvements is established in five-year increments,to coincide with the five-, 10-and 20-year projections of the Master Plan. Based upon the five-year schedule of improvements and developments,Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program Funds are requested for assistance with the accomplishment of those eligible projects programmed in the Master Plan. FREIGHT The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element addresses the needs and impacts of goods movement and distribution in Renton. The Freight Chapter focuses on the two primary providers of freight transportation: trucking and freight rail. Objectives The Freight Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-S: Maintain existing freight rail service to Renton commercial and industrial sites. T-T: Maintain truck access between Renton industrial areas and the regional highway system. T-U: Minimize the impact of truck traffic on general traffic circulation and on Renton neighborhoods. NNW XI-55 ATTACHMENT E 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, Policy T-61. Support railroad crossing particularly noise and parking, associated with improvements that minimize maintenance and heavy trucks. In addition,the intent of the protect the street surface. policies is to minimize the physical impact of heavy trucks on city streets.) Policy T-62. Where warranted,provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning Policy T-58. Transportation facilities should be signals,on at-grade crossings. designed to complement railroads. Policy T-59. Spur tracks should be located to Policy T-63. The City should continue to work provide a minimum number of street crossings with local,regional, state and federal agencies to and serve a maximum number of sites. address regional freight needs and to mitigate local impacts. Truck Routes The City has a system of truck routes(see Figure 7-1). Until October 1991,the system had been informal,comprising only advisory signs on the routes. With the City Council adoption of the Truck Route Ordinance,the truck route system became a regulatory system. Trucks weighing over 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight are restricted to operating on one of the designated truck routes. Trucks needing to make deliveries off of the designated truck routes are required to take the most direct arterial route to/from one of the designated truck routes. When more than one delivery off the designated truck routes can be combined to limit multiple intrusions into residential neighborhoods, a truck driver has an obligation to combine those trips. The truck route ordinance does not apply to the operation of Renton School District buses on designated routes,public transit on designated routes, garbage trucks, city maintenance vehicles, or emergency vehicles. XI-56 ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 7-1 *limo TRUCK ROUTES . -• ,__ Truck Routes ';.--.:---.•:--,pi 0; .,. . _ Legend :,,-.,,,,-_,-. _ 11 a , •:.- , Truck Route nom liia Transportation City Limit ' ' i Plan %-‘- Affair( ...., .,. ra, likk A..castle .. iltkilill ilurimul 11111111111111111 Planning Area '111111111 i ''' TINS/ 11111,4M1k "'lei& NotToSok Pliiiii• - - - - - - ' - --- .i , 'Irsir, -- If .411111 -7.1 k. , ' -- • - - - -,'"=.,111" FAIIIIIiik _ . - = - , 1 Iiiiii.. - 7,'L--% libb log 4 1-• ii- im 1,-- „ •-....,„ (7 44:711:1111ti .. ......----. :::. ': 7.-‘ -''' ' - * :-. 44:1111iill:". -11TraitTi a".11 Namur• ,... lir41 .- - • - - . i-- A it..••,..A .:_-.. -4- NMI 111111/11h TOINN*7‘ 'L Figill .:.4 fl.:.:-:.‘i•-:.7';;..11_3k6'.4 - -''L--..4 II \N i Ellina t.11i4liit '' .- - - -- ' ifirigV2-tiCi'Ziet e ,. 1 1 = *me I*I',r-P-/'t nN.s4h,i'lil',ci,,eb,i4,i,4yraaiimAvIii7ok1r4W7C_,;-ozIA i,Mi.7,L_g-,ktE -r0 1.:. pki*6tnt:o"ei st..r..p1A.e...k40i,rl.imiagil le a-k1-a. IIuIkm•utL R1-I I .•I_ 11 ill.1 1. •1 ' 1‘.:4,,`:-- .. ,- , .... ' 'p. ,. * :1 -. 10.- .4444ho Ile- IL -........ _ -— • *Ale ----41--p4;t : -- ii.. .,_ ,ti- ;' , - ill.' :-.•fi lotb‘-'01 ils..4'.4.-- -*."-:'. -1 761 1 - laKqk 4. imoriiii,-,- II ' 4 „di 4 ttlii ' Ilia Nion '17 0, 4 -711 4 ' -,:,,ingusimmi IP ( . ,. ,:.. ,.........._ A-. Will.Aiii.. VI ild 1 mil , ar ., :1711111111111 Illa17.785113 P14 a 1 it a II..., iliq 41 i-Vw_tor.i _. . I. /11111 - a XI-57 ATTACHMENT E Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element recognizes the importance of maintaining rail ` transportation, which supports industrial and commercial land uses, and provides one component of a multi-modal transportation system. The Freight Chapter also provides guidelines to ensure that existing rail lines do not impact adjacent land uses, create maintenance problems for City streets or pose safety concerns. Freight rail service is currently available to several industrial and commercial areas of the City. Existing rail lines bordering the City of Renton include the Union Pacific(UPRR)and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad(BNSF)main line tracks between Seattle and Tacoma. Within the City of Renton,the BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line connects Renton and the east side of Lake Washington to the BNSF main line. The BNSF main line runs in a north-south direction and is located along the City of Renton's western city limits, separating Renton from the City of Tukwila. The BNSF main line is double-track,and carries a considerable volume of freight service,as well as passenger service provided by Amtrak under a trackage rights agreement. Only freight service is provided to the City of Renton from the BNSF main line. A single spur track with several branch lines serves the Renton Valley industrial area(southwest Renton). Another single spur track from the BNSF main line serves the Container Corporation of America plant, located north of I-405 in the Earlington industrial area. Use of these spur lines is intermittent, usually on an as-needed basis with no particular set time or frequency. Commuter rail trains use the BNSF main line,with a stop at the new Renton/Tukwila(Longacres) station located just south of I-405. The commuter rail service is an element of the Regional Transit Plan(Sound Move),approved by voters in 1996. The commuter rail service began in 2001. Three trains currently provide one-way service between Tacoma and Seattle during the weekday AM peak period and between ,4400 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. **4400 XI-58 ATTACHMENT E Regional Accessibility Trucks and Industrial Traffic Truck access from City of Renton industrial areas to the regional highway/freeway system has the option of several alternative designated truck routes(see Figure 7-1). The Valley industrial area(southwest Renton) is directly connected to the regional system via the S.W. 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 1-405 (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 1-405 and SR-167 from the North Renton industrial area is via North 6th Street, Airport Way,and Rainier Avenue. Truck and industrial traffic access from 1-405 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. 3n' Street-N.E.4th Street. The Stoneway Sand and Gravel complex,west of 1-405, generates industrial traffic that uses the North Park Avenue on-ramp to access 1-405. Arterial improvement projects in the Transportation Plan will enhance truck access between the industrial areas and the regional highway/freeway system. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Future land use development is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in rail freight service in Renton. Future plans call for additional commuter rail trains using the BNSF main line, stopping at the Renton/Tukwila(Longacres)station. Freight Action Strategy(FAST)Corridor The Freight Action Strategy(FAST)corridor, and the projects which comprise FAST, evolved over several years. Beginning in 1994, the Freight Mobility Roundabout—a jointly-sponsored effort of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the public/private Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County—made a sustained commitment to freight mobility within and through the northwest gateway region, which ties the regional(and national)economy to the Pacific Rim. Roundabout participants include shippers and carriers representing all freight mobility modes: marine,rail,truck, air, and intermodal. Other participants are public agencies at all levels: local governments(including the City of Renton),the three ports of Seattle,Tacoma and Everett,WSDOT and the State Transportation Commission, and federal agencies(FHWA,FTA). Late in 1994 the United States Department of Transportation together with the Roundabout,the WSDOT,and the Puget Sound Regional Council established FAST Corridor. FAST Corridor is a collection of complementary grade separation and port access projects within the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma area of Washington State. Collectively, these projects will enhance the movement of freight within and through the region. Key points of the FAST Corridor projects include: • Between Everett in the north and Tacoma in the south, focus on the region's north-south rail routes and port access routes. • Helping to improve the state and region's transportation capacity to better meet the needs for freight and goods movements. • Implementation of a series of grade separation and port access improvements,along with some ' corollary improvements. These improvements will complement other freight and passenger rail improvements in the region,regional ITS efforts,and other planned highway improvements. XI-59 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 180t Street in Tukwila(S.W.43rd Street in Renton)was completed in 2003. These improvements are a constructive first step toward improving rail freight travel along the western boundary of the City of Renton and associated freight rail travel passing through Renton. The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board(FMSIB): • develops and maintains a comprehensive and coordinated state program to facilitate freight movement between and among local,national and international markets; • works to find solutions that lessen the impact of the movement of freight on local communities; • proposes policies,projects,corridors,and funding to the state legislature to promote strategic investments in a statewide freight mobility transportation system; and • proposes projects that lessen the impact of freight movement on local communities. In 2003, the FMSIB selected the SW 27th/Strander Boulevard project to receive$4,000,000. It is anticipated these funds will be programmed by 2006. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION The Financing and Implementation Chapter outlines the strategies and actions to finance and implement ' the transportation improvements and programs planned as part of the City of Renton's transportation plan. Renton will meet transportation needs through arterial,transit, high occupancy vehicle,non-motorized improvements,travel demand management programs,and airport, truck and rail plans as outlined in previous discussion of the transportation plan. The Financing and Implementation Chapter includes: • Goals,objectives and policies relating to financing and implementation of the transportation plan. • Information on current revenue sources and future revenues. • Assessment of Renton's 20-year transportation needs and funding capability. • Assessment of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)with regard to transportation improvements and programs identified in this document. • Strategies and actions for fmancing 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. XI-60 ATTACHMENT E T-W: Develop a staging and implementation plan that expedites transportation system improvement projects that i)improve HOV flow, ii) improve transit service, iii) improve pedestrian and bicycle 'err' 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 determine transportation financing needs,a twenty-year(2002 to 2022)program(including arterial, HOV,transit and non-motorized components identified previously in this document)was established,and a planning level cost estimate prepared. Also included as an element of the 20-year funding needs are annual transportation programs that include: transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance; traffic ',taw 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. err XI-61 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 NIS XI-62 ATTACHMENT E TABLE 8.2 Nowe CITY OF RENTON SOURCE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Annual 20-Year Business License Fee Half-Cent Gas Tax $ 1.88 million $ 37.6 million Grants $ 0.35 million $ 7.0 million Developer Mitigation $ 3.90 million $ 78.0 million $ 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 of the future annual funding level. 5.2% 44010, The City of Renton has aggressively pursued federal and state continue, thus providing 58%of the future annual funding level. Examples of federal whichants in the past, isa assumed to Surface Transportation Program(STP), Congestion Management Air QualityCMA grants includepthe Enhancements Program, which are awarded regionally by the Puget Sound Regional Council and bridge replacement,road safety, and railroad crossing improvement programs Q)' and Transportation t grants include those provided by the Transportation Partnership Program(TPP),the Arterial jImproveament Program(ATP), and Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Program(PSMP), whichthe Transportation Improvement Board. are administered b y 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 fee per vehicle trip. Developer mitigation is assumed to contribute 9%of the future annual fundinglev a should be noted that developer mitigation is not a reliable(or stable)source of transportation funds(as of mitigation required by GMA). The irregularity of private development projects and thus uneven flow el. It 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 e cost of improvement projects that benefit the properties. Petitions from two-thirds of the property owners of property equal to two-thirds of the assessed valuation of the LID area are required in order to form an LID. Because it cannot be determined when there will be enough petitioners to form an LID and therefore, XI-63 ATTACHMENT E it is n of known when an LID can be formed to make improvements,LIDs have not been included as a source of transportation funds. though The above revenue sources are projected to remain approximately the same over the next 20 years, the percent contribution from individual sources may change. Howev ,trends nsen trans The trendsorttion financing de: are becoming apparent,which could affect the City of Renton'stransportation declining ga re revenue available from several existing sources,such as the half-cent o trs taxortansportation needs uirements growing anstion growing faster than available revenues; local, state,and federal and increasing cost; the undetermined potential for new improvements lengthening the design process fundin sources; and,the continued inability of regional agencies to address regional transportation needs. g p 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 needs kine nbeeds againston the The Growth Management Act(GMA)requires development sof a'multiyear financing p judge to probable funding resources." This includes 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-yesix-year transportation and 20 year programs.improvement program • establish consistency between the six-year A 20-year transportation program(comprised of improvements roams) and a planning level cost discussed previously in the Street Network, HOV,Transit,and Non-motorized Chapters and annual transportation estimate of$134 million(summarized on Table 8.2)have been esmitablished was first.deterBased sd. on the 20-year funding level of$134 million,an annual funding level of$ an annual funding rate it can reasonably be assumed that if this HOV fel isties aia a ned,ifconscithe facilities ntiously being funded are consistent with the 20-year plan,and i transi and emphasized,it should be reasonable to assume that the level of service can be maintained for the intervening years with the established funding rate. on-going process The City of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)is part of an on-g g intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Six-Year TIP is intrY ro ams,regional/inter/jurisdictional planning and also linked with various state and federal funding p gr 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 P 1general programming considerations are: general programming considerations. Those P t� g Plannin How a project fits with or addresses identified future n ansportation 1 level. This soals,demands,and strongly influenced by planning processes must be evaluated on both a local and regional ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans. or the receipt Financin . Many projects are dependent on receiving outsidegrants, formationoeach IDs, various fund — --g ,; of mitigation funds. Prioritization has to take into account peculiarities sources and the probabilities of when, and how much,money will be available. X1-64 ATTACHMENT E Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with, or interdependent on,other projects taking place,it is e 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. `'err►' 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. —w XI-65 Aormir 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 newNed development in the City of Renton. Operations and safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts,accident records and geometric data,but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. The City of Renton's adopted 2005 2010 2006-2011 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program includes many of the transportation improvements and programs identified in the Street Network,Transit, HOV,Non-motorized and Transportation Demand Management Chapters of this Transportation Element. The projects or programs are listed in Table 8.3. Also shown in Table 8.3 are annual programs (transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance,traffic operations and safety;projects and programs, I ongoing project development). The following lists various 2006-2011 2005 2010 TIP projects under each of the chapters of the Transportation Element. XI-66 ATTACHMENT E TABLE 8.3 CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2006-20112005 2010) law XI-67 monirosimminiumorrommir ATTACHMENT E Total Project Costs Previous Six-Year •tai Project Tide Costs 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Perlod T• - 4 Cost 1 - Ova P•,ram 1,050.002 405 00e 405 000 405 000 405,000 405,000 405,000 2,4 • 3480,002 2 S ISW 27th SltStrander By 355,174 10,000 10,0001 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 ,000 410,174 a Stra 'v WSW 27th St Connect. 1,705,460 800,000 9,394,540 28,000,000 26,500,000 ,414,540 66400,000 4 SR 169 •14091 to SR900 2,000,392 10,000 55,100 3,680,000 2350,000 6,095,100 8,095,492 s RentonU • hurtle(RUSH) 20,169 5,000 5,000 5.000 5,000 5,000 5,•• 30.000, 50,169 4 Transit Prog 32,584 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20 122.400 154,984 7 Rainier Av • •• tudyfknprov. 267,710 20,000 20,000 20,000 261,000 2.964,000 3,1, •• 6,450,000 6.717,710 s NE 3rdrNE 4th C• 323,892 315,300 807,500 5,017,000 2,100,000 000 10,339,800 10 663692 I Walkway Program 317,533 236,600 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 .000 1,486,600 1,604,133 is S Lake Wash.Roadway .v. 1.500,000 1,850,000 14,300,000 600,000 39,950,000 41,450.000 11 SR 169 Corridor Study 50.000 50,000 50,000 tt South Renton Project 156,800 18,200 240,000 258,200 415,000 13 1-405 Improvements in Renton 42,186 30,000 20,000 10,000 60,000 102,186 14 Pro Dave•• tiPred ,n 271,363 175,000 175000 200,000 200000 000 200,000 1.150,000 1,421,363 is NE 4th SUR••ulam Av NE 55,100 344,900 344,900( 400,000 1s Rainier Av•SW 7th to 4th PI '•000 .. ••,• 1 0 000 855,000 3,590 000 3,670,000 17 Benson Rd-S 26th to Main •r• 459,400 2,500 _ 461,900 481,900 it Arterial Circulation Program 19 , 200,000- 200.000 200,000 200• 250,000, 250,000 1,300,000 1,495 308 is Bridge inspection&Repair 120,4 40,000 140,000 40,000 6 ' •• 40,0001 30,000 905,000 1.025,411 29 Loop Replacement Program 57,441 20,000 20,000 20,000 ,000 20,000 20,000 120.000 177,441 21 Sign Replacement Program 13427 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 45,000 58.427 22 Pole Program 47,974 •..000' 48,400 25.000 25,000 25,000 25,000 173,400 221,374 23 Sound Translt HOY Direct Access 46,523 ••.1 5,000 15.000 61,523 24 Traffic Safety Program 233,791 :• 40,000 40,0 40,000 40,000 40,000 280,000 513,791 25 Traffic Efficiency Program 250,505 251,•r 114,400 7' %• 30,000 30,000 30,000 531,300 781,805 26 C813 Bike&Ped.Connections 25,212 50,000 50,000 ,••• 590,000 410,000 5,000 1,115,000 1,140.212 27 Arterial Rehab.Prog. 537,800 195,000 0,000 4-,000 340,000 230,000 _ 180,000 1,390,000 1,927,800 618 29 Suns.UDuvall intersection 115,000 381,000 •� 2 38,000.7003 496,4000 30 RR Cross •Sa P•.. 5,198 5,000 5• 10,000 10 000 30 000 35,198 31 TDM Program 100,670 64,200 • •• 64,200 64,200 64200 64,200 385,200 485,870 32 Trans Concurrency 1,784 40.000 .000 4•.000 10,000 10,000 30,000 140,000 141,784 33 Missing Unks Program 36,350 30,000 30,0004 ••. 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 216,350 34 GIS Needs Assessment 44,874 35,000 35,000 • • 20,000 20,000 20,000 150,000 194,874 35 Gra. Corridor Stu• 5,000 35•• 120000 80,•. 230,000 1,810,000 1,020,000 3295000 3,300,000 34 Bkycle Route Der.Program 24,798 18,000 18,000 110,000 80,000 80,000 326.000 350,798 37 Lake Wash.By-Park to Coulon Pk 329,900 :.i _ 149,100 226,600 558,500 38 Interagency Signal Coord. 26.572 000 12,000 38,572 as Environmental Mondoring 223,711 85,000 75,000 50,000 •,• 25,000; 25,000 285,000 508,711 40 1rans V*Ury 8.Soos Creek Corr. 7,300 5,000 1 5,000 12,300 41 WSDOT Coordination Program 18,657 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,.•I- 10,000 10,000 60,000 78,857 42 1%for the Arte 20,•' 50.000 30,000 30,000 50,000 30,000 30,000 220,000 240,000 43 Arterial 140V Program 1 10,000 16000 20,000 145,354 44 ParkSunset Corridor ,::9 25.0001 50,000 390,000 1,691,000 1,• '`.•' 3,215,000 3,222,889 45 Lind AvSW 16th•SW 43rd 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,914,000 626.. 2,550,000 2,555,000 46 Benson Rd S f S 3ist St 138,500 61,500 61,500 200,000 47 Logan Av Concrete Panel Repair 460,0001 460 000 460,000 43 CarM•Nd S•nat 5,000 10,000 20,000 340 000 400,000 0,000 785 000 785 000 491,280,315 30,000 30,000 1.310,315 So BiliiiiiEgiiir 26391 10,000 10000 36,391 51 1=0221E:Cal= 810.000 610,000 810 000 52 50 000 5 000 5,000 10•.• 60,000 53 Irri-mr1w=i3d,19 . 629.400 10,600' 10.600 640000 54 i'=17=1:.•-•:0' 500••• 12*.• 000 512,000 55 SW7th SUL • SW 273,577 26,423 .c 300000 Se Duval Ave N. • 'County 547,858 1,311,342 2,810,800 4,1 r 4 670,000 Total Sou 14.938,836 7.986.465 9,710.700 3,364,300 28,964,640 55,821.100 58.367,100 164 4,3, 179,153.141 XI-68 ( 4' t ( . aazas=ssxxascssx - sxxxuxsasutuuxxasx xa;:l.s-.......»+g Y - ; f 0'dffir '_ g 121 l em • : . . ;. tt7�a � t7 1 n4 . ~ T . *9 : ? 4 lli : .2 ilt , «ui >o : . 3 illA I: i • 0 r4O P t N ONyp yp gAA Vn •,. # tit _ . �VC+. t.W r015 - N q tv tg S1 " • S" C_ . f. _ bq+ I[�' N+N yv y�OIN�~�Nw+�7(i N V yv� y �{�j v i8- - '' 1" - - - - -0- 147 . ii ' §) mN 1 2S $ : ' : -8 -7 :2S$$ ; 8 . 7 :i. :,--: . 1( :'.!F” :0q !.! i''.. ! aA W A N O - a !; - I!!!!IflP t = :t= tN58 f : :L . w _ ' y pp q 4a . _ Q - s t=r- -O i.,, t O S - Ns N: - No APS Lr A N N; i°VA.r. C N L P A q A i Np x g N N f 11 i O W OO.i -_ - w • - ,'�� l'gg'>_ fRn�lar$Si� = �'�11..P3�:. . a ' votx"#''w++� ATTACHMENT E s Street Network • South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements(TIP#4812) • Rainier Avenue—SW 4th Place to SW 7th Street(TIP#1611) • Grady Way—Main Avenue to West City Limits(TIP#3534) • Lind Avenue S.W.—S.W. 16th Street to S.W.43rd Street(TIP#4544) • Duvall Ave N.E.—Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits(TIP#28) • Mill Avenue South/Carr Road(TIP#4849) • Strander Boulevard—SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (TIP#3) • Sunset Boulevard/Duvall Avenue NE(TIP#2947) -• ' :.. ... ...°'Street to South 31' Street(TIP#46) • N.E. 3rd/N.E.4th Corridor Improvements(TIP#98) • Rainier Avenue Corridor Study/Improvements(TIP#7-6) • Lake Washington Blvd.—Park Avenue North to Coulon Park(TIP#3736) • Park Avenue North/Sunset Boulevard—North 6th to Duvall Avenue N.E. (TIP#4443) *S.W. 7th Street/Lind Avenue S.W.(TIP#55) • South Renton Neighborhood Improvements(#1213) • N.E.4th/Hoquiam Avenue N.E. (TIP#1516) Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial Circulation Program(TIP#1817),which will provide funding for further development of multi-modal improvements on Renton's arterials to support the Transportation Plan and comply with clean air legislation. Also included are expenditures for project development studies I (TIP#1415)for development of future TIP projects and grant applications for currently proposed and future TIP projects. Nod Transit • Transit Program: facilities to support regional transit service, local transit service improvements; development of park and ride lots,transit amenities(TIP#85) • Renton Urban Shuttle(RUSH)Program: operation of the shuttle bus service within Renton. (TIP #54) priority to transit vehicles. (TIP#49) Also, the HOV Chapter improvements identified below will be designed to enhance transit service. HOV th • SR-167/S.W. 27—Street HOV(TIP#2) • Sound Transit HOV Direct Access(TIP#23) • SR-169 HOV—Sunset Blvd. to east City Limits(TIP#145) It should be noted that the expenditure shown for Sound Transit HOV Direct Access (TIP#23) is for coordination with the State and Sound Transit direct access interchange improvements. Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial HOV Program(TIP#4342), which will provide funding for further development of Renton HOV improvements identified previously in the HOV Plan(Figure 3-1),to examine additional routes and corridors for HOV facilities in Renton, and for coordination with direct access HOV projects. Nod' XI-70 ATTACHMENT E • Non-Motorized 'err 0, I • Benson Road Improvements—South 26th to Main Avenue(TIP#4-746) • CBD Bike and Pedestrian Connections(TIP#26) Also included in the proposed Six-Year TIP is the Walkway Program(TIP#910), which will provide funding for sidewalk and handicap curb ramp needs identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive I Citywide Walkway Program. The Bicycle Route Development Program(TIP#3-635)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 'fir• Transportation Systems Division of the PlanningBuilding/Public Works Department. Project prioritization is determined by the Transportation Systems Division in coordination with the Community Services Department. Funding for bicycle signing is provided through the capital improvement programs and the General Fund operating budgets of the Transportation Systems Division. Signing specifically identified as part of transportation projects will be funded through the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Trails Implementation. Many of the planned pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, administered by the Community Services Department, would be valuable components of the transportation system, and,therefore,are coordinated with the Transportation Plan. The Long Range,Parks,Recreation,Open Space and Trails Plan contains the recommended six-year trails development program. Only projects that are specifically identified as transportation facilities will be included in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). TDM/CTR • Transportation Demand Management Program: implement Commute Trip Reduction Act requirements,other TDM programs(TIP#3130) Funding Assessment A 20-year transportation program has been established having an estimated cost of$134 million. This program was the basis for determining an annual funding level of$6.7 million. Assuming this annual funding level can be maintained over the 20-year period(2002-2022),it is reasonably certain that the 20- w' year transportation program can be implemented. Annual reassessment of transportation needs,continuing XI-71 ATTACHMENT E S to aggressively pursue grant funding,and/or continuation of the strong rate of growth in Renton,which will generate higher developer mitigation revenue, will be needed over the intervening years in order to assume the 2022 transportation program can be achieved. The City of Renton's proposed 2005 20102006-2011 Six-Year TIP includes 56 53 individual projects and programs,with a total estimated cost of$179.-15-28 million. Of this total cost, approximately$1.64.2161.6 million is to be expended over the 2005 2010 2006-2011 six-year period. (It should be noted that for several projects and programs,expenditures over the six-year period are shown,not the total project or program cost.) The difference of about$-13-18 million represents expenditures prior to year 20052006. The projected revenues over the six-year period,based on the established$6.7 million annual funding,will total $40.2 million. The TIP identified expenditures of$164.2161.6 million is $121 121 million more than the projected revenues. Of this$124 121 million,approximately$64-61 million represents the amount of participation anticipated by the State, Sound Transit,King County,neighboring jurisdictions,and private sector contributions on joint projects. As previously discussed,transportation improvement expenditures of other jurisdictions have not been included when establishing the$6.7 million annual funding level. Therefore,the Six-Year TIP expenditures exceed projected revenues by$60 million. In order for projects to be eligible for projected funding,they must be,by law, included in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Because it is not possible to know which projects will qualify for funding,the Six-Year TIP includes a cross-section of projects to provide a list of projects that will be eligible for funding from the various revenue sources,when and if,such funds become available. The result is a Six-Year TIP which has expenditures exceeding projected revenues. The challenge for the future will be to secure enough funding for the City of Renton, Cities of Tukwila and Kent, King County, Sound Transit,and the state to implement the improvements to their respective facilities included in the Transportation Plan. However,several strategies for acquiring needed funding are nS evident at this time. They include: • Establish interjurisdictional funding mechanisms, such as payment of mitigation fees to address impacts of growth within adjacent jurisdictions that affect the City of Renton. • Update transportation priorities annually and incorporate in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. • Continue to work more aggressively with adjacent cities,King County, Washington State Department of Transportation and other agencies to fund their respective improvements in the Transportation Plan,i.e., through joint projects. • Continue to work with regional agencies to encourage them to find and fund regional solutions for regional transportation problems. Mitigation Process There are new laws and regulations that have tremendous impacts on land use, the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs, and costs and funding of transportation projects. Examples are the Wetlands Management Ordinance, Surface Water Management Ordinance,the Clean Air Act, Commute Trip Reduction Act,Endangered Species Act,and the Growth Management Act. As a result,a transportation mitigation policy and process has been developed as part of the transportation plan. This XI-72 ATTACHMENT E mitigation policy serves as a framework for the citywide mitigation payment system that was adopted by the City in 1996. This mitigation policy includes the City of Renton: • Developing a citywide 20-year transportation system improvement plan(defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan). • Determining the cost of the citywide 20-year transportation improvements to support new development. • Establishing a fee for developments'pro-rated share of the cost of the citywide 20-year transportation improvements(in addition to site-specific mitigation required by the City). This mitigation fee would be established during the SEPA review process and paid during the project development process. • Continuing the current established business license fee and percentage of the business license fee allocated for transportation purposes as has been the custom in the past. • Having the flexibility to modify the citywide transportation plan as needed to address environmental/regional coordination issues. • Approving future development conditioned upon site specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent transportation facility impacts are mitigated,and the payment of the mitigation fee as the development's fair share contribution towards: 1)ensuring that the cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated; and 2)maintaining the City of Renton adopted level of service standard. Site specific improvements could include construction of additional traffic lanes and/or traffic signals. ''mire 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. fir►` XI-73 ATTACHMENT E Concurrency Management System The Growth Management Act(GMA)describes concurrency as the situation where adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur,or within a specified time thereafter. This description includes the concept of available public facilities. The GMA defines "available public facilities"as facilities or services in place,or a financial commitment in place,to provide the facilities within a specified time. For transportation,the specified time is six years from time of development. City of Renton policies that support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land Use Element and in this Element. To address concurrency under the GMA and City of Renton policies,a concurrency management system has been developed for the City of Renton that is based on the following process: • The City of Renton will adopt a multi-modal Transportation Plan that will be consistent with regional plans and those of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the Transportation Plan will be defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • The City of Renton Transportation Level of Service(LOS)Policy, although it differs from the traditional LOS for arterials, is consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies and will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities,then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. • The Transportation Plan will include a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy. One of the fund sources will be mitigation fees collected from developers as a condition of land use development within the City of Renton. The approval of the development will be conditioned upon the payment of this Transportation Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent facility impacts. • The City of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the improvement elements of the citywide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS and land use development is met. • The City of Renton will establish concurrency by annually testing the citywide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level of Service standard. The City of Renton will adjust the transportation improvement plan as necessary to meet the LOS standard. • Based upon the annual test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan,payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation,development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. Transportation Concurrency Regulations(Ordinance No.4708, adopted 3-2-1998)and Guidelines and Procedures for Monitoring Transportation Concurrency(adopted 4-6-1998)comprise the procedures, standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new land use development. XI-74 ATTACHMENT E 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 Now adopted citywide Level of Service standard and the Concurrency Management System, using rules and procedures established by the City of Renton. The concurrency test includes technical review of a development activity by the City of Renton to determine if the transportation system has adequate or unused or uncommitted capacity,or will have adequate capacity, to accommodate vehicle trips generated by the proposed development, without causing the level of service standard to decline below adopted standards,at the time of development or within six years. A written finding of concurrency is provided by the City prior to the approval of the development permit. If the development activity fails the concurrency test,the City allows the development applicant to submit alternative data,provide a traffic mitigation plan, or reduce the size of the development project in order to achieve concurrency. Monitoring,and evaluation of the City of Renton's Concurrency Management System and Transportation Concurrency Regulations will be reviewed as part of ongoing transportation work. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES The Environmental and Natural Resources Chapter describes objectives,policies,and strategies to help protect Renton's natural resources and Renton residents from unacceptable air and water quality impacts of the transportation system. Clean air and water are necessary for healthful living in an urban society. Objectives T-X: Protect and promote clean air to ensure a healthful environment. T-Y: Reduce vehicular emissions by encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, transit,and non- Now 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. Nosy XI-75 Adopted 11/01/04 Also see related Policies in the Environmental County Countywide Planning Policies,which by Element,the Land Use Element,and the King this reference,are incorporated in this Chapter. Air Quality--Implementation Plan The City will subscribe to the plans,policies, and programs catalogued in the State Implementation Plan for air quality non-attainment areas. Transportation demand management(TDM)strategies will be encouraged, including the Commute Trip Reduction Law. Existing vehicle programs such as the winter oxygenated fuels and vehicle inspections will be continued, supported,and updated as requirements demand. Ongoing transportation planning work will include the review of the latest information from state and local agencies regarding air quality non-attainment areas, severity of violations and implementation plans. Improving Water Quality The City of Renton will comply with federal, state, and local plans,policies and programs for water quality. The City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on increasing the availability and use of HOV,transit,and non-motorized transportation modes and transportation demand management strategies. The intent of this program is to reduce vehicular traffic which will make it possible to limit the expansion of the existing roadway system and,in certain locations,limit additional impervious surfaces. This, in turn, will reduce vehicular pollutants and their effect on water quality. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION A multitude of agencies are involved in transportation planning and improvement. To become better integrated into the regional transportation system,Renton needs to strengthen its role in the region, `voiof 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. XI-76 Adopted 11/01/04 Objectives Now, 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 cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. Policy T-80. The City of Renton, in collaboration 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 Renton and I-405 corridor,extending from Sea- Policy T-81. The Regional Transit Authority Tac Airport north to Bothell. (Sound Transit) should provide transit service and 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 regarding transportation consistency/concurrency unincorporated King County to intercept pass *ow 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)1 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-77 A Adopted 11/01/04 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. Nod 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. XI-78 • Adopted 11/01/04 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. Niro' 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. *ow' Re-evaluate residential, commercial,and industrial access street function definitions and classifications. XI-79 Orr► Adopted 11/01/04 Transit Transit Plan Update and revise Renton's Transit Plan to reflect new information regarding the Regional Transportation Plan(Sound Move). Conduct further analysis of the local feeder system transit improvements identified in the City of Renton Transit Needs Assessment in order to verify operational and financial feasibility. (Includes the development and incorporation of more detailed bus routing and dial-a-ride needs.) Level of Service Continue to refine the transit index of Renton's LOS standard to address transit service frequency. HOV HOV Plan Continue the assessment of criteria for HOV facility planning,design, and operation. Conduct further analysis of the HOV improvements identified in the HOV Plan in order to verify physical, operational, and financial feasibility. Also,investigate other potential locations for HOV improvements, and define scope and cost of the proposed improvements in more detail,as appropriate. Level of Service Continue to update the HOV index of Renton's LOS standards,if needed. Non-motorized Neighborhood and Regional Access Based on the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study,determine additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities that support Renton's access needs and complement the Regional Transit Plan and local transit system. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan Update the routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan to reflect the reassessment of neighborhood and regional access needs. Identify, in cooperation with other City of Renton departments and citizen groups, the facilities that could be included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. TDM/CTR Existing Parking Supply and Demand Inventory existing citywide on-site and off-site parking facilities to determine number of spaces and utilization, if needed during future review of parking policies, guidelines,and regulations. Parking Policy Review and Revisions Continue to review, update and/or revise Renton parking policies to complement other elements of the Renton Transportation Plan and to be consistent with regional parking policies. Working in regional forums propose parking regulation revisions to be worked out on a sub-regional basis. Employer Mode Split With assistance from King County, evaluate updated Renton employers CTR data and revise citywide employer mode split if needed. XI-80 Adopted 11/01/04 TDM/CTR Programs *Istre Renton's CTR ordinance was amended in February, 1998. Public and private employers have developed programs for complying with the ordinance. Annual review of these programs will be conducted to monitor progress toward meeting CTR goals. Parking Management Ordinance Continue to review the City of Renton parking regulations for revisions to complement the Renton Land Use Element and Transportation Element and to be consistent with regional and other local jurisdictional parking policies. Airport Continue to update the goals, objectives,policies, functional requirements, and implementation strategies of the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element as needed. Freight Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users Update assessment of rail use compatibility with current land uses and FAST implementation strategies,as needed. Regional Accessibility Continue to review,and update if needed,the assessment of Renton rail use with respect to implications of the Regional Transit Plan(Sound Move)and to reflect Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit)decisions. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Ital"' Review and update the assessment of freight and passenger rail needs,as appropriate. Financing and Implementation Program and Project Costs Update the scope and cost of improvements determined from the continued feasibility analysis of the arterial and HOV elements. Also, update the scope and cost of transit,non-motorized and other programs included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. Update the cost of the 20-year transportation plan, as needed. Mitigation Process Adjust the citywide developer mitigation fee structure,if needed,to reflect revisions to the financing plan resulting from further analysis of the Transportation Plan improvements and costs, and funding sources. Funding Program Adjust the priority of projects or programs identified under the Arterial,Transit, HOV,Non-Motorized,and TDM chapters as needed. Review the multi-year(20 years)financing plan and assess funding needs for the identified projects or programs. Include appropriate projects and programs in the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Identify potential sources of additional funds, if funding from current sources is not adequate,and to reflect federal, State,regional or local decisions regarding availability of current sources. Concurrency Continue to review, and revise if needed,the implementation,monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the Concurrency Management System(CMS)and update,as necessary,the rules,regulations and ordinances that X1-81 Adopted 11/01/04 s implement the concurrency requirements. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions regarding CMS requirements and regulations. Ned 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-82 re Adopted 11/01/04 a N, om�' hensive Ran Ord�ruancc A�C�ndc� 4ftac%men-t '' d "re lacemei7` es (2) frn 9,a, due 4o -C11liar sEm40,0-q/ �,,hb4,9 // d7�a0� Purpose Statement: Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close-in urban mixed-use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian-pedestrian-oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub-regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation,pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LU-CCC: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban I development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provides a pedestrian scale environment. I Policy LU-317. Apply the Center Village Designation-designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto-oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed-use type of development. Policy LU-318. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including Residential 10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multi-family(RMF). Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designations or re-zone with the vision for a Center Village designation Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub-area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the Highlands Redevelopment Plan is expected to occur over a 2—5- year period. A' Strategy 319.3. Areas east of Edmonds and north of Sunset currently zoned RMF are to remain in residential use. The area north of 12th St. currently zoned R-10 is to remain in residential use. Policy LU-320. Allow residential density ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village Designatiendesignation. Policy LU-321. Encourage mixed-use structures and projects. Policy LU-322. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the Center Village. Policy LU-323. Accommodate parking within a parking structure. Where structured parking is infeasible due to site configuration,parking should be located in the back or the side of the primary structure. Discourage 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. Page 51 of 76 Adopted 11/01/04 Policy LU-326. Develop design guidelines to provide direction on site design, building I 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 Ioutside 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. Page 52 of 76 070D0 .ompre`eosi ' //err / nQ re agenda 7t� �? a, ,. Ii- e.::: aoo6 �� ATTACHMENT D-IPe�lar� af O r �t' c is u , , /�°v/a_mal r7rt Nal, war 1 . . pm& .hilit IC It et .It i - waliw - • v , 1 '- `!!!! ,- .r. / i li poi i , F., . ; 1 ., • . .„.....110. ...,... i 4.rt, -,...... „ - _ , ../ - ,itill , , U t 7 a 7 I ilftw . A . r r q / / -hi ot ,,, ; 101 , „ --. 1ilAr - ' ,.. •1 „4• ,„., /' �l c \,' ` `ten „,„,„, ,. kr `iA 0 I 10 I I 1 I I. F- 'r . ( 1 ittli . , N,t, lc* ..,„„„.._, 174111 an ' ....MV w f� liAl.,.:40411111064„,,t1 I e� l�ll ; 1 , 4,I.,,,i=", \71 , I1111 11. li str". ‘1 kkW ilxpriliCh4r.,,!�rillattliii,-", .. LAKE WASHINGTON __ 1 slikinjulowl.Timil A T.,7",zati, , 'imil 1-0...PILlik •-:14 i';k7.-gli:Fit'ileil , IiiLliiiii118411 togii ,N, ' ifikili 4'''''' ''' ,r'',-, ,, 11-5-- .', 1 ' * onionipirt,v9r P., :', ..41,7tN:-. Nil Ed , „„ ., ....., EFEE7.7.- iittg.:4,,,A.) , ,„,,,, . . ,. ii A . , lommi mum -- - ' - "-----. LL4.411._11,----iii ----is rr7lic Ifill 2 a".Cl•-A-3-4.j :PAINMICZEI. \ ditirVklita if a P Will 11(I II iiii A v i i it 0 0,..kb,S *F.MBA .,IN alnitrat '. ' . ', Fritoplinalq ... .,... 1111 sc,mo\ ill.,,,. I PIP. 7-"Ni \ It' 'Itab v w .,,,\ . .40„:„„, , it....,.. c s 4u. © i"'q tI ,iir t FEEL ; �,as 4 ,� ,,; a�..r--_; ; F,d `°�'\�It `r �``'Iti' fiEEI 1joi s. ` ..,'' ''AlkrAINPitik,(2.1..$11E6 . olgivr. [I r - , - , lir , A 11111 . ME -, 4;1 --- . * , r ,..741--.-1 . ., ,, !\ N...+.w,....1 1'��,ili"s".� 7'-,,,,,,,7..,!':,;:.,,:,,,,,1,, ori,, , ' ,/,- ,II%Ai 1e6 4°`i ti„. ,H h / lib ,,:,...i, \,_ !, veto lir \ \ jallipplir i IP if' . p PA `` `4rmarri t , e ; ... at.,'---- s •----4 �''"+ � 1,4 1�� ' ' '4PREP,Atw.) } x , , [Mb' x o- F o- r j ,,.,,,. x .... . ,„ , q I 'ILA -�1 ,.x.I c . =� a � •, , .. `® a 1 elt>to. �A P $ ! 1 1,liTri'al."'"%' '''''''`‘I• . „.,"1/ f a I 1 1 ° c■ ! • .... NA l� 1 1 1 ;Pr . x.;' ..x.. t t;. ` '11,40,1 fl dm 1 1 .,..,. V at iti--- A , ' vim — ii , .. ,....L.,..t. ..., __NJ& i 1,.....- , ,iii nzi-A--. (. a ° r a ! il I I1 Mk a ; —. f LAKE 1 ' ill ' -... t t PANTHER ral ! x. rillarilil Igmeell N 061 1 INE x.» . .. N 1 1 �.... v s t• t•, $ o- LAKE YOtJNGS .x,� s�uu., „n.x �i.unIA 74#11111r: - t'lit rill b i1 H SW � s _ 1—C am _ rJ -11 4000 8000 ,,,,. ' AUDI„ ; To, aI a I i hllAlll 1311 a4 ,,,4' \9. • City of Renton RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS Residential Low Density Employment Area-Industrial Residential Single Family Employment Area-Valley Comprehensive Plan ( Residential Medium Density 71 Residential Multi-Family Land Use Map COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS Commercial Neighborhood CENTER DESIGNATIONS Min Commercial/Office/Residential Center Village - Commercial Corridor Gti' 'Y 0 EDNSP q Urban Center Downtown �� PB/PW Technical Services Urban Center-North City Limits R. MacOnie, D. Visneski • Urban Growth Boundary ��N1 0 Printed November 2006 1514. 42"1/ieael/t7y CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON C1a�o/o/-Mn //,?7-10.01t ORDINANCE NO. 5.1,29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (CARR ROAD PROPERTIES) FROM RESIDENTIAL 8 DU/AC (R-8) AND RESIDENTIAL 10 DU/AC (R-10) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 14 DU/AC (R-14),FILE NO. LUA-05-163(CPA 2006-M-3). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has previously been zoned as Residential 8 du/ac (R-8) and Residential 10 du/ac (R-10); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about September 20, 2006, and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 14 du/ac as hereinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and 1 ORDINANCE NO. directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to- wit: See Attachments "A," "B" and "C," attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Carr Road Properties) SECTION H. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1299:11/16/06:ma 2 ATTACHMENT A RIVERA REZONE 2006-M-03 REZONE FROM R-8 TO R-14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.; LESS road, (Carr Rd.). All situate in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT B RIVERA REZONE 2006-M-03 REZONE FROM R-10 TO R-14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., lying westerly of the westerly right of way margins of Mill Ave S and 103`d Ave S; LESS that portion lying southerly of the south line of Lot 2 of City of Renton Lot line Adjustment#014-088, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 198904079001; LESS road, (Carr Rd.). All situate in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. a Attachment C _-.1. wow ow NITA11 my il, Pliwoormixammum °11 gagligi Ma Mal aili ginglill0 11W RMI1th ra r.al Mg ON ■11 ..al lip 11111111 1(Ii /111111/ 1111 1� . A1111111100111M- 1111 411 1111111110., ppr iii1111 fop I 0 IS lilt Aw TA • I ♦Mr ISR-+ i 11 ----- 016,,, a SaLerielPS 43Q/ St a CJ`f Ill PI will ,t = 1 mg Lii Ix I tae 41111 Géiluilihl %mug' PI 111111►, "I 0.il iiin minnw4 Ira IMIPW ril la i rl 111111111110 Ji►i..�i��! ONO__ Carr Rd Properties Rezone to R-14 LUA 05-163 CPA 2006-M-03 0 500 1000 r N- • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning • iR • Alex Pietsch,Administrator c s.Fewer 4 • •," 26 October 2006 — Renton City Limits all Rezone to R-14 4- a"�fa&7 9 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON � Dh // ,2 ORDINANCE NO. 5(230 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES PROPERTY) FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 DU/AC (R-10) ZONING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE ZONING(CO),FILE NO. LUA-05- 158 (CPA 2006-M-4). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has previously been zoned as Residential 10 du/ac(R-10); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about September 20, 2006, and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Commercial Office as hereinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and 1 ORDINANCE NO. 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. (Springbrook Associates Property) 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 , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1303:11/16/06:ma 2 ATTACHMENT A SPRINGBROOK REZONE 2006-M-04 REZONE FROM R-10 TO CO LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 4 of City of Renton East Valley Medical Park Short Plat# 77-113, as recorded under Rec. No. 7808151009, records of King County. All situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Attachment B 4 H S 34th S � ______\\ SW 3Lth St _ . t \ _-<( i (-) 11 10.: A _ ti - jilliP W ci>) MN an 114 �� ►y ;6- III ft mineiw w4imosuies fe _ w/ km 18th jI - -- . )_._ fir iArth IIis MIL •t SW 41stS: LA �■■�. �f — 7 -I off' __.___S 17 t h Ste.// sa " I' -I-- \ __, ___________ SW 43rc St cocJ'3.S 3ISti L Springbrook Associates Rezone from R-10 to CO 0 500 1000 LUAOS-158, CPA 20064-04 EN R-10 to CO olgo 0- 260co�obe20Hooaoc evebpm�.NaghbmboodI&Str$fegio PlanningCity Limits 1 : 6000 06 /S-, a/4real CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON adO /Dn //-077,e006 ORDINANCE NO. .5,13/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (PUGET COLONY HOMES) FROM RESIDENTIAL 8 DU/AC (R-8) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 4 DU/AC (R-4) ZONING, FILE NO. LUA-06-120 (CPA 2006-M-5). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has previously been zoned as Residential 8 du/ac(R-8); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about September 20, 2006, and the matter has been considered by the Planning Commission, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 4 du/ac as hereinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and 1 ORDINANCE NO. 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. (Puget Colony Homes) 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 , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1300:11/16/06:ma 2 ATTACHMENT A PUGET COLONY HOMES, CPA 2006-M-05 REZONE FROM R-8 TO R-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West half of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington; EXCEPT roads. * - Nil; Fri ----i ,ti-- — we r7 `E �►____ NT B O o b1 - C- - r - - thSt . IMP 111 "III N: i `` to •: iii■111IIIIIIEWIr l� . IliV < moo r_ 1 aliwatia EN _73- (' 1 1 IIII my 41 , pima ■1.. =ira EIN �ii1E .t .... as 7- illin MP rnhie! 13d Imai us 2n St ' nr� in mai\ . 11111111 IIv�eiii W� atgN .2 11111111112i�i��1:-� ■ 11 ll *w .tom *ge4 �Pa : ■ii , Q �■� lig lb LW 10 3 ow iim��l�lrai�� Al I� �1� g��■1pte IPIIIF$PjIii.___! '�im 41/ 1 11 elniatidik- lila WM --D 3111111 bin g SE 2nd PI . wow nom TAI v. g Lu I DO' 0, NO* 0 0 (f) 0 0 0 0 V Q) ---ui :tI4jj4j .� 1111§ miLi imme. II■ I ' i■ W c - 'bhp ill 0 dog irlit, ill gm __, lisommilim LtA 4 . 144 al- -,',- mom ♦ ♦ 0 3/111,9 ,,d LA zm %Olt s `') 111111116 ag Ni Winn s En ( 40 Oft 4 4 < "Pip IR '‘ILII me At i , ), -Ada .ai So in, mum NMI MINN Puget Colony Homes CPA 2006-M-05 0 600 1200 Rezone from R-8 to R-4 ::::::::: ::: : E R-8 to R-4 GtiCY 04, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning From Residential Single Family to I. ! . Alex Pietsch,Administrator Residential Low Density C.E.Feasel �NTo� 17 November 2006 — — Renton City Limits /5/v- o2"dreadme- sair1/D/ //-/7-•2t - CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5,2302 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON'S POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA (FORMER AQUA BARN PROPERTY) AS COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA)ZONING. (CPA 2006-M-7) WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about September 20, 2006, and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton shall bear the following zoning designation once annexed to the City of Renton: Commercial Arterial (CA) as hereinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning 1 ORDINANCE NO. Department Administrator 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. (Former Aquabarn Property) SECTION IL This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five(5) days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1306:11/16/06:ma 2 ATTACHMENT A AQUA BARN REZONE REZONE FROM KING COUNTY NB TO CITY OF RENTON CA LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 3 &4 of King County Short Plat L99S3019, as recorded in Vol. 147, Pages 104, 104A, 104B and 104C, under recording number 20010831900002, records of King County; • All situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington. Attachment B =I♦ •♦I♦1 itr �r� m,;� MEMFarad �� .♦' u mi�ie�-- — oma% MI: �m � !_n ..r~!� ME!!!!! ly ih A �• dii/,� Fi�1L'laJlui.■.f► : \ �♦ � q �- .r � �1i♦1\�rop ... ►� ii ■■ ■.■it�� ,: ��siir� �� IIV� 11.111... � ■z v~ Ion1111n:�� 111:� `�! ;113 Ip`■1■mo_■i 40 V.Ur-. . Im 1.1.11101 ci; c� :� �� r,�1vs "i444•47. r IMF it :"4;; Ai rmal ion IIg Volley 'iiisy ' �,��'ll 44..• tie IP' Van ..,..em . Vali*l// ft\ W4 \ a4��I�� sy \I ♦1rrrr48181 I SE Renton _ ' , i Mid-1�1 tan). 1/1040 MOW II • .4 apv Allnr `RIO nom It*.i •♦•ii��► ►► �Or�►" �:'.11 i�I1�1►11111 !7 • �. � ♦ SII \\♦ ♦♦ ♦�� .>♦•1 ►\ vik.4F Alm teroP ��.11" • Iiinitt;t& #fr Iift .t &til . i •f►IE31111e.Ily4 ��111. ��► ■fifififlfiiiltlt� min mho 1��► VIM.i2 EMP08A��11 ��a1,, Q� ' a R1A1 II hair ni 111 p".MI E Bp„• ektire • v4 ��. os --1111111111111k4 ♦ .� mi coir ::fl••:rt r: ■�eprop• •414.�I: ,� �� =' ►me .■.. . tee4.• s�� 451 Pat♦0 4 N �,ci1111111l113103EETA �� Ift... ii C'91 t�El! o••.••.. .44 0,40 .•..♦v �Ao .■..fi■f\.=�■ I�, .1►. i au .Ifilmti1111iiI11�fii it.. ••,�►►►■ve m-lifi o r'��►i;= al WWIIr;.ni♦l Af -ori 7ii. 11.► of no,,► ..e �I yecul �� , \ �.._ • K,141 44;A WM Ilt AU � 11 r•••� 3 .�1 � 4,. 1119. 1121 4l,, Alij 10%E zgitti ♦♦ �,amu,•. ♦ ♦911 /■■r. I4%, 1,.4/1 Wm ma L �� ' L..6 , II ,I �� r !I" illt �� v.? fgo* � *i..oil!. IISfly ♦ A � ��, ka— In IIIII\ Former Aquabarn Property Rezone to CA a ��' 0 LUA 06-096 CPA 2006-M-7 0 1200 2400 CAcif ti • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ♦ tfe ♦ Alex Pieta*Administrator — Urban Growth Boundary 1 : 14400 • C.E.Feasel — Renton CityLimits To 07 November 2006 15'4 4 2q read/n5 adooA/on I/.27200( CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5,133 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON'S POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA (FORMER AQUA BARN PROPERTY) AS RESIDENTIAL-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE (R-14) ZONING. (CPA 2006-M-7). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about September 20, 2006, and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton shall bear the following zoning designation once annexed to the City of Renton: Residential-14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) as hereinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods 1 ORDINANCE NO. and Strategic Planning Department Administrator 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. (Former Aquabarn Property) SECTION IL This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five(5) days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1307:11/16/06:ma 2 ATTACHMENT A AQUA BARN REZONE REZONE FROM KING COUNTY R-12 TO CITY OF RENTON R-14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1 &2 of King County Short Plat L99S3019, as recorded in Vol. 147, Pages 104, 104A, 104B and 104C, under recording number 20010831900002, records of King County; All situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington. Attachment B ►I�,��I�1 opror �urr W i, ■wan-, .„,_..ming i i�� a ��//�� i_ L!_ZJI�E`iil-� .■.; ,: it III II �,��, ��' �y l/� a ■n w� w�ffir�T i/61Li � �� .1. IIII11 �I --..�■I II�.a ran KJ mg ra imam:I�i i�1111 v�'�� IRE ■■■■■mmatm '%WM -- ■1 I Q111111111111111111111 OM MI III al �� NM w 1 �a. \111 w w.. ♦ �i 1, �� • ��. . � mum w�Eno 1 � � � � �� 11111 �i1�� +►� ► — .■��j■■ 1 �� sl ` ", ��7nPrI ti y:A `e� Ems :`"■ Cit c41 :::: I 8b.„,a, 11 � �, t,!film .��.� El1�l X111� 1 .""\'�Eo ;1, lor a■`s : ■ 111111111.liprimal 10 IP��i�i� i4ip 4 �� 4 A 1 'fines R.triptirming! elop. ..;(41.4,„ ik '- il•,.. ii .1 I ,44,44143 ,�� ?* ' 8. ton _ 40P/e •,� �''n .,. ■ : ,��,/11'1� �� F,4414 otoi �'� �i ��. . Illikkillar., 1011111111 •� �� Volley yW � �� I i��i . 1.1' •1j ��U'�\� 41 ,,,, p 1IIII�II1/11 I SE Renton _Villift 11,1, moo* rte.", s g4A:ii a li INF-, 1111. or i , ,' IAA 111110% gee• 414 iit G��I -.Vow ... 1► ow �:Sri . 514,4 a id leadrny d CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON adofl'om //-47"6 ORDINANCE NO. 5-013'r AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (UPPER KENNYDALE AREA) FROM RESIDENTIAL 8 DU/AC (R-8) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 4 DU/AC (R-4) ZONING; FILE NO. LUA-06-122 (CPA 2006-M-8). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has previously been zoned as Residential 8 du/ac(R-8); and WHEREAS,the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about September 20, 2006, and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have 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 L The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 4 du/ac (R-4) 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: 1 ORDINANCE NO. See Attachments"A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Upper Kennydale 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 , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1308:11/17/06:ma 2 ATTACHMENT A UPPER KENNYDALE REZONE 2006-M-08 REZONE FROM R-8 TO R-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All those lands contained within the following described boundary: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Tract 291 of the Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4, recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 82, records of King County, Washington; Thence southerly along the southerly extension of the east line of said Tract, to an intersection with the centerline of NE 16th St; Thence westerly along said centerline to an intersection with the centerline of Jones Ave NE; Thence southerly along said centerline of Jones Ave NE to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south line of Tract 320 of the Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. Five, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 83, records of said county; Thence westerly along said extension and the south line of said Tract to its intersection with the easterly right of way margin of Interstate 405; Thence northerly along the various courses of said easterly margin to the south line of Lot 4 of the Plat of Eldon Acres, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Pages 86 A&B, records of said county; Thence easterly along the south line of said Lot 4 to the Southwest corner of Lot 8 of the Urch Subdivision according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 88 of Plats, Page 79, records of said county; Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 8 and the northerly extension thereof to the centerline of NE 27th Ct; Thence east along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Jones Ave NE; Thence north along said centerline to an intersection with the easterly extension of the north line of Tract 278 of said Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4; ATTACHMENT A Thence easterly along said easterly extension and said north line to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat#00-067 as recorded under King County Rec. No. 20010426900009; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 4 to the Southeast corner thereof, said south east corner being a point on the south line of said Tract 278; Thence westerly along the south line of Tract 278 to the Northeast corner of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment#86-010 as recorded under King County Rec. No. 198609229011; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 1 to the Southeast corner thereof; Thence southerly crossing NE 26th Pl. to the Northeast corner of Lot 2 of said lot line adjustment; Thence southerly along the east line of said lot to the southeast corner thereof, said Southeast corner being a point on the north line of Tract 295 of said Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4; Thence easterly along the north line of said Tract 295, to the northeast corner thereof; Thence southerly along the east line of said Tract 295, to an intersection with the north line of the South 150 feet of Tract 282 of said plat; Thence easterly along said north line, to its intersection with the westerly right of way margin of Kennewick Ave NE; Thence southerly along said westerly margin to an intersection with the westerly extension of the northerly line of Lot 1 of the Plat of Sunset Hills, recorded in Volume 169 of Plats, Pages 51-55, records of said county; Thence easterly along said extension and the north line of said Lot 1 to the northeast corner thereof, said Northeast corner being on the west line of Lot 11 of said plat; Thence northerly along said west line to the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; Thence easterly along the north lines of Lots 11, 12 & 13 of said plat, to the Northeast corner of said Lot 13; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 13 and its southerly extension crossing NE 24th St to the southerly right of way margin thereof; Thence westerly along said southerly margin, to the east line of the of the West 63 feet of the East half of the North 200 feet of Tract 273 of said Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4; ATTACHMENT A Thence southerly along said east line, to the south line of the North 200 feet of said Tract 273; Thence westerly along said north line, to the west line of Tract 283 of said plat; Thence southerly along the east lines of Tracts 283 & 284 of said plat to an intersection with the north line of the South 80 feet of Tract 272 of said plat; Thence easterly along said north line to the east line of the West 126 feet of said Tract 272; Thence southerly along said east line and its southerly extension crossing NE 20th St, to the southerly right of way margin thereof; Thence westerly along said southerly margin, to the northeast corner of the tract of land identified as "UTILITIES AND OPEN SPACE EASEMENT" on sheet 2 of 3 of the Plat of Higate, as recorded in Volume 113 of Plats, Pages 44-46, records of said county; Thence southerly along the various courses of the easterly boundary of said tract of land to the Southeast corner thereof, said southeast corner being on the northerly right of way margin of NE 17th Pl; Thence along the various courses of the southerly boundary of said tract, to its intersection with the west line of said tract, said west line also being the west line of Tract 270 of said Plat of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4; Thence northerly along said west line of Tract 270 and 271 to the Northwest corner of said Tract 271, said Northwest corner also being a point on the southerly right of way margin of NE 20th St; Thence westerly along said southerly margin to the Northeast corner of Tract 292 of said plat; Thence southerly along the east lines of said Tracts 292 & 291 to the beginning. LESS roads. All situate in Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County, Washington. Attachment B ...... ===.11•001miriniiMINM M.....MIMM =II I 11-11-111111111111111111 ..... .10-m-iiirli 1111 _s':.1.1416‘, .1 ifirmi 1 % iii 11.1111=1.1 I MtilvPisrlilaqmskr- vlislaiglitrwrilmdl liillAPIIIIIIIIPPA 111 limil MIIIIW IMMIII111111111111 t7v4Till '.)--- .., 4 • lami mni•ik gr.. Adaiii.•rt,Ar mi 1 tr717.,11"ifilllimmil; .11,11,1„„IIIIIIMUI1111111 ..Airi IN . kor vpim ow,. pa, g 7.7.7n!,.'Z..::,Iiimblemeniamin miu.1111116! glimv AI_ sige' walla 1 .::::-.:::::::::: p.,!.:ampli.tominhliiiiiii immiAl 4‘ ‘oruliarmitamil -:..----" . ',i... itglmilgios.... —"" immon rya impli il a zmi ow EN mie IN— .SAM ism- .. -_..14 111.1111.mill .- 1 7I rd II MIMI= 1 :--- ''-'•••.' ''.'''''-'''''"''''' r'iic4'''''.. '''''''' '''l Niel \E e biblill EN r I. i.: - -. ../,..'-:.::: !.i.v-,.,...,-:..-.-- -.:... 1 %, mor :. ,::::..;-;:-:,:::::,:::: ;:yi...,:: : ,:..,--ilia iiirm nil ' r Ilm c° mi .-..r..- ::,. ..-;:, .;:-:... g .: :::. ::..r.. --:.:iii = llims RI lik ,. .. .. . „ . _I .. ...m EmiiIII --,1;.:.i..,1::;:•:.':-..::..-...:]-.,:,::-:-:.:.:::,..-.:...'-..!..:,-•:-',-:,•::;-.:-,-:--.-,......-..--,-.i:..::s:.,.;,,::•..;..:,,;.:i,:'.:;':',',.--•:,.':..-:..-.---..1...'.•..•:.aw d2IIinII.A. i'6 m... irm I,2 llrLc lIINifN=111l1il ' 1*1 rmiiiiiia rsijiFloom m ... ' ,-.::,...!:. ..-:::.,I,:.,...:.,..•.. ..at — MN In Elk 111 • um--6 . - . : . -• - ' ma- ot .r,''-•.-'.. ...!,,',.:'-''''--.'".''''''',,.:1. !ma Ltig ti . fr.: Elm Li Min L-31.11 Lola Ira is NM NW Lim ... .:. mItil ___I"L>1 .1. ism =NEI mil Eig ZEE . , . ; :•:.; :.,.., : ..., -- -- I1 .. --..,. .. .. , . ..; . . .„ :...,:;, ....:••:....:„:„, .. .- k ..as by ligli . .. ;.:. ... . . .... .... . . .. . ,. . .,, . . . ••iiIirgaimi .. , S . .„ . .:,...:, .„,,,,..„..,..:, :, ., . . . - - • assim. ----- .% in a‘voil .0) steivemor ..,. . „._ -:.: :.:,„, .,. .. :-::.:,-"in 41 111 /1161 )-c' • ak Aim: V, In sri.,::-.,:::::....:.,. .,.:',.',:.1 1.11:4-111.11kiliPil111.1 ,c211:n' li iii• ris IRV 1 .;!..:::-'.'.-1--',''.'-'•!Ji'-'in IIIMMEil MI TulL'1 Ems mos Eimll am.- 111111111 MN ow sot= -iii mulmilimo El kill wil m • on mm 110 om IN VIIII um IN Ism .,,. e - ... . sib,,we NI IF .. . . . -0 ms - N .: rat Amc7i 2 im Immo EX on 01111PI .. -- u gm mg ..milliteal I Maw iiii ma iim • DIM NEffir mi is .1,1 iiiim all • nu miwIlmil wil snip Err Will TiiiiPillamipii till‘ Mil 6.••••■LIIIIIIIIIMP.I III ki\IILIIIIIIIP3t; illiiiiiis IP! _ 5., mr„ 1 im swum iimmoismwm 1111111111111E Upper Kennydale Rezone from R-8 to R-4 LUA 06-122 CPA-2006-M-8 0 600 1200 0 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning + Alex Pietsch,Administator 1 . 7200 Rai Rezone R-8 to R-4 x*.• . Wii:vember 2006 /5A4,o teodcq adopi/on //.17 Boa , CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 502,35 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, STORM AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE; CHAPTER 4, WATER; AND CHAPTER 5, SEWERS; OF TITLE VIII (HEALTH AND SANITATION) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON"BY INCREASING RATES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 8-2-2.G.1 of Chapter 2, Storm and Surface Water Drainage, of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: G. Special Rates: 1. a. Senior and/or disabled citizens who qualified under RMC 8-4-31 C for low-income rates prior to August 1, 1994, are eligible for rates of one dollar nineteen cents ($1.19)per month for a seventy-five percent (75%)rate subsidy, or one dollar sixty five cents ($1.65)for a forty percent(40%)rate subsidy. b. Senior and/or disabled citizens who qualify under RMC 8-4-31 C for low- income rates after August 1, 1994, are eligible for rates of one dollar forty seven cents ($1.47)per month for a seventy-five percent (75%)rate subsidy, or three dollars fifty cents($3.50)for a forty percent (40%) subsidy. c. Double occupancy households who qualify under RMC 8-4-31 C for low- income rates after August 1, 1994, with an income between thirty percent(30%) and fifty percent (50%)of the median household income for King County will pay three dollars and twenty eight cents($3.28)per month. 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. Section 8-2-3.E.1 of Chapter 2, Storm and Surface Water Drainage, of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: E. Charges For Surface Water Utility: 1. The following schedule is hereby adopted as the monthly charges to be paid to the City for surface water utility services: a. Single-family dwelling $5.72 per unit b. Low intensity, 0.5 acre or less $14.16 per acre c. Medium intensity, 0.5 acre or less $20.49 per acre d. High intensity, 0.5 acre or less $26.42 per acre e. Low intensity, more than 0.5 acre $28.33 per acre f. Medium intensity, more than 0.5 $40.96 per acre acre g. High intensity, more than 0.5 acre $52.83 per acre h. Gravel pits $56.96 per acre i. City streets $14.20 per acre SECTION III. Section 8-4-24.A.1 of Chapter 4, Water, of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Fire Protection Charge: The private fire protection charge will be three dollars eighty-six cents($3.86)per month per inch of fire meter size. 2 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION IV. Section 8-4-31.B and C of Chapter 4,Water, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: B. Metered Rates: 1. The minimum rates for metered water supplied within the City in one month or fractional period thereof are hereby fixed in the following schedule: Size Of Service Total Service Charge 3/4 in. $11.93 1 in. 14.94 1-1/2 in. 19.14 2 in. 33.46 3 in. 99.08 4 in. 143.22 6 in. 214.86 8 in. 298.43 10 in. 429.72 12 in. 596.86 2. Commodity Rates: Two (2) consumption blocks will be established for residential customers(single-family and duplex customers). The size of the first block will be zero to one thousand(0 to 1,000) cubic feet of water consumed per month. The second block will be all consumption over one thousand(1,000)cubic feet per month. The rates for these two(2)blocks are as follows: 1 to 1,000 cubic feet $2.01 3 ORDINANCE NO. Over 1,000 cubic feet $2.14 All commercial customers (multi-family, commercial and industrial)will pay for consumption at the first block rate of two dollars and one cent ($2.01)per one hundred (100) cubic feet. 3. (Rep. by Ord. 4898, 3-19-2001) C. Senior Citizens And Disabled Persons: The following is hereby established for certain senior citizens and disabled persons who are economically disadvantaged as herein set forth: 1. Low-Income Seniors: A "low-income senior citizen" is defined as a person sixty- two(62)years of age or older who resides in a single-family dwelling that is separately metered for water usage, either as owner, purchaser, or renter, and whose total income, including that of his or her spouse or co-tenant, does not exceed the annual income threshold for low-income rate eligibility. The annual income threshold for eligibility for low-income rate shall be adjusted each calendar year, using the Income Guidelines for King County as provided annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Any household with a disposable income of thirty percent (30%)or less of the median household income for King County will be eligible for a seventy-five percent (75%)rate subsidy. Any household with an annual disposable income between thirty percent(30%) and fifty percent(50%)of the King County median household income is eligible for a forty percent (40%)rate subsidy. For the calendar year 2007 those figures shall be less than sixteen thousand three hundred fifty dollars ($16,350)or less per annum for a seventy five percent (75%) rate subsidy and between sixteen thousand three hundred fifty dollars($16,350)and twenty-seven thousand two hundred fifty dollars($27,250) for a forty percent (40%)rate subsidy for single occupancy, and for double occupancy eighteen thousand seven hundred dollars($18,700)or less for a seventy-five percent(75%)rate subsidy, and 4 ORDINANCE NO. between eighteen thousand seven hundred dollars($18,700)and thirty-one thousand one hundred fifty dollars($31,150)for a forty percent (40%)rate subsidy. For households with more than two (2)individuals qualifying under subsection C of this Section, an additional five thousand dollars ($5,000)is added to the income threshold per qualifying individual. 2. Low-Income Disabled Citizen: A "low-income disabled citizen" is defined as: a) a person qualifying for special parking privileges under RCW 46.16.381(1)(a)through(f); b) a blind person as defined in RCW 74.18.020; c) a disabled, handicapped, or incapacitated person as defined under any other existing State or Federal program; or d)a person on home kidney dialysis treatment who resides in a single-family dwelling that is separately metered for water usage, either as owner, purchaser or renter, and whose total income, including that of his or her spouse or co-tenant, does not exceed the annual income threshold for eligibility for low-income rate. 3. Qualified Persons: a. Every such person (if double occupancy, then both household members) shall meet either of the above requirements to qualify for senior citizen and disabled rate(s). Every such person(if double occupancy, then both household members), shall file with the Utilities billing section of the City, his or her affidavit, that he/she or they are qualified to be charged the special rate for such utility services herein stated. b. Such statement shall contain such other information as the Utilities billing section may prescribe, including but not limited to address, ownership or interest in the dwelling occupied by such applicant(s), amount, source and nature of all income from any and all sources, together with the applicant's unqualified promise to forthwith notify the City of any circumstances or change in condition which would make the applicant(s) 5 ORDINANCE NO. ineligible to receive said special rate(s). The Utilities billing section may establish rules and procedures for implementing this Section. 4. Low-Income Rates: a. For those senior citizens and disabled persons who qualified as economically disadvantaged and were on this low-income rate prior to August 1, 1994, the following rates for water service relating to such single-family dwelling in which such eligible person or persons permanently reside are as follows: (1) One dollar forty two cents ($1.42) per month for a seventy-five percent (75%)rate subsidy and two dollars fifty five cents($2.55)for a forty percent (40%)rate subsidy, limited to nine hundred (900) cubic feet of water per month. (2) Any excess shall be charged as provided in subsections A and B of this Section. b. For those senior citizens and disabled persons who qualify as economically disadvantaged, and were on this low-income rate after August 1, 1994, the following rates for water service relating to such single-family dwelling in which such eligible person or persons permanently reside: (1) Three dollars thirteen cents ($3.13)per month for a seventy-five percent(75%)rate subsidy, limited to nine hundred(900) cubic feet of water per month, and seven dollars fifty cents ($7.50)per month for a forty percent (40%) rate subsidy, limited to nine hundred (900) cubic feet of water per month. (2) Any excess shall be charged as provided in subsections A and B of this Section, except for those persons who qualify under home kidney dialysis. 6 ORDINANCE NO. These customers are limited to one thousand seven hundred (1,700) cubic feet of water per month before any excess is charged as provided in subsections A and B of this Section. c. For those senior citizens and disabled persons who become eligible according to the criteria in subsections Cl and C2 of this Section after the effective date hereof, the following rates for water service relating to such single-family dwelling in which such eligible person or persons permanently reside: (1) Two dollars eighty five cents ($2.85) per month, limited to nine hundred (900) cubic feet of water per month, and for households with income thirty percent (30%)or less of the median household income for King County; and six dollars eighty one cents ($6.81)per month, limited to nine hundred(900) cubic feet of water per month for double occupancy households with income between thirty percent (30%) and fifty percent(50%)of the median household income for King County. (2) Any excess shall be charged as provided in subsections A and B of this Section. 5. For those senior citizens, sixty two(62)years of age or older and/or disabled citizens, when such seniors and/or disabled citizens are not otherwise eligible for special rates as low-income seniors and/or disabled citizens, but who qualify for property tax exemption pursuant to RCW 84.36.381(5)(a) and are not residents of the City shall be exempt from the fifty percent (50%)utility surcharge applicable to those customers not residents of the City. To receive this exemption the applicant must provide the information required under subsection C3 of this Section. 7 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION V. Section 8-5-15.A of Chapter 5, Sewers, of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Disposal Rates: The monthly rates and charges for sewage disposal service shall be as follows: 1. Single-Family: Fourteen dollars sixty seven cents ($14.67). 2. All Other Users: A base charge of two dollars twenty two cents($2.22)plus one dollar sixty six cents ($1.66)per month for each one hundred (100) cubic feet of water used, but not less than fourteen dollars sixty seven cents($14.67) per month. 3. Charges For Sewer Service Without City Water: In the event that water obtained from sources other than purchased from the City is either discharged or drained into the sewer system, users shall be charged by one of the two (2) following methods: a. For single-family residences, fourteen dollars sixty seven cents($14.67) per month. b. For other than single-family dwellings, the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator shall install a water meter into such private water system at cost to property owners, and the method of billing shall be in compliance with subsection A2 of this Section. 4. (Rep. by Ord. 4898, 3-19-01) SECTION VI. Section 8-5-15.D of Chapter 5, Sewers, of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 8 ORDINANCE NO. D. Additional Charges: In addition to the foregoing charges specified in this Section, the following rates shall be charged: 1. A charge of twenty seven dollars and ninety-five cents($27.95)per month and a rate adjustment charge of fifty six cents ($0.56)per month payable to King County Wastewater for each single-family dwelling unit. 2. A charge of twenty seven dollars and ninety-five cents ($27.95)per month and a rate adjustment charge of fifty-six cents($0.56)per month payable to King County Wastewater for each seven hundred fifty(750) cubic feet, or any fraction thereof, of water used for all users other than single-family. 3. Any additional charges hereafter imposed by King County Wastewater under the "Industrial Cost Recovery" or"Industrial Waste Surcharge" programs required under the FWPCA(PL 92-500), Section 204, or as same may be amended hereafter, plus fifteen percent (15%)thereof as an additional charge for the City's cost of implementing such programs. 4. Senior and/or disabled citizens who qualified under RMC 8-4-31C for low- income rates prior to August 1, 1994, are eligible for the following rates: a. Twenty seven dollars and ninety-five cents ($27.95) per month for King County Wastewater, and one dollar twenty-six cents($1.26)per month for City sewer charges for a seventy five percent (75%) rate subsidy and two dollars thirty-nine cents ($2.39)per month for City sewer charges for a forty percent(40%)rate subsidy. b. Senior and/or disabled citizens who qualify under RMC 8-4-31C for low- income rates after August 1, 1994, are eligible for the following rates: (1) Twenty seven dollars and ninety-five cents ($27.95) per month for King County Wastewater and three dollars seventy six cents ($3.76)per month 9 ORDINANCE NO. for City sewer charges for a seventy-five percent (75%)rate subsidy, and eight dollars eighty two cents($8.82) per month for City sewer charges for a forty percent(40%)rate subsidy. (2) For double occupancy households, eight dollars twenty three cents ($8.23)per month for households with incomes between thirty percent (30%) and fifty percent (50%) of the median household income for the City. 5. For those senior citizens sixty-two(62)years of age or older and/or disabled citizens, when such seniors and/or disabled citizens are not otherwise eligible for special rates as low-income seniors and/or disabled citizens, but who qualify for property tax exemption pursuant to RCW 84.36.381(5)(a) and are not residents of the City shall be exempt from the fifty percent(50%)utility surcharge applicable to those customers not residents of the City. To receive this exemption the applicant must provide the information required under RMC 8-4- 31C2. -4-31C2. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor 10 ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1293:10/3 0/06:ma 11 II- ow-01006 ,9enda --Min 9. 4. * r'evi'sed CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON �sf read/n3 ORDINANCE NO. 5,236 Adonfed //-27-a2Of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF RENTON (HUDSON ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-05-005) 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 January 30, 2006; and WHEREAS, prior to the filing and circulation of said 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 upon public hearing thereon, it having been determined and the petitioning owners having agreed to assume the pre-existing outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton as it pertains to the territory petitioned to be annexed; and to accept that portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the territory including the applicable Zoning Code relating thereto; and WHEREAS, the King County Department of Assessments examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexation and determined signatures represent acreage, as provided by law, in excess of sixty percent (60%)of the area to be annexed; and WHEREAS,the City Council, after due notice and publication, held a public hearing on . the 60% Direct Petition and possible future zoning for the 14.63-acre annexation site on June 5, 2006, and at that time accepted the 60% Direct Petition and authorized the sending of the "Notice of Intention"to the Boundary Review Board for King County; and 1 ORDINANCE NO. 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 fixed June 5, 2006, and November 11, 2006, as the time and place for public hearings 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 petition method for annexation have been met; and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board having deemed the "Notice of Intention" for the 14.63-acre annexation site approved, as set forth in its closing letter issued on September 26, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton is proposing prezoning the annexation site R-8 and R- 10; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The findings, recitals, and determinations are hereby found to be true and correct in all respects. All requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by petition method, including the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140 and 150, 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 2 ORDINANCE NO. being contiguous to the City limits of the City of Renton is hereby annexed to the City of Renton, effective May 1, 2007, after the approval, passage, and publication of this Ordinance; and on and after said date of May 1, 2007, the property shall constitute a part of the City of 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 14.63 acres, is generally located west, south, and east of the existing City of Renton boundaries defined by a peninsula of land immediately east of 108th Avenue SE, and south of SE 168th Street, as shown on Exhibit"Al and the owners-petitioners of the property shall assume the pre-existing outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton as prescribed in RCW 35A.14.120 as it pertains to the property, and the property to be subject to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. SECTION IL This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty(30) 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. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor 3 ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1296:11/14/06:ma 4 EXHIBIT "A" HUDSON ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 20 through 25, inclusive, Block 4, Aker's Farms No. 5, as recorded in Volume 40 of Plats, Page 27, records of King County, Washington, as platted; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Benson Road S. (State Route 515, Secondary State Highway No. 5C) in the southwest quarter of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, being the easterly 30 or 42 feet in width, lying northerly of a line beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 20, crossing said Benson Road S, to the southeast corner of the west 30 feet of the north 82 feet of the south half (1/2) of the north half(1/2) of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 29, said southeast corner being the termination of said line; and TOGETHER WITH the north quarter(1/4) of said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 29, EXCEPT the east 264 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the west 30 feet of said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 29, lying southerly of the south line of the north quarter(1/4) thereof, and lying northerly of said line beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 20 of said Aker's Farms No. 5, crossing said Benson Road S, to the southeast corner of the west 30 feet of the north 82 feet of the south half(1/2) of the north half(1/2) of said subdivision, said southeast corner being the termination of said line; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the south 30 feet (SE 168th Street) of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 29, lying easterly of that portion of said street included in the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed by Ordinance No. 1971, and lying westerly of the west line of the east 264 feet of said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 29 extended northerly, to the northerly right-of-way margin of said SE 168th Street, as it crosses 111th Ave SE. u r mli — r I Cr V \ 1� o� *c1 /2 a ii�a�� c ri 40 ° Q ❑ o D o _ 111113 rVifi Ai rtik;4111111MAL El I:1 2 Ifi 1 3 s . , o vi ME err i . ',;, T liiii _4_, ttrolin ,„ ., .i, ;,, ,,,„,.,„,,,,, 1:2 NIP ik-1111 i: ID 113 s • J on I. ■ o __,L--7 o 11 ED aID ❑ 1 ICI 0 �P W� • 1 ;4' r £ ii rr ; L h a �� FTi� ,�'L -ss Xfi�S*�4w �v.��"�3� '�'t' � `�'4 Y� $- F e�fr� , BMW ::-1 AttLI:;;411:1k-4it*=i'e 1,:„• ''._- 1.' :7,--,' s'''''':11,1.,`'::,;;1,:e';,-`.:11;,,-1 0 0 t::3 Mrs - et.CC ❑D CI 0 DO MO rt�' � ','-}i._._ F. ..Y .3�� e4 ❑ 13' Lb rai mi o 13 . iiw iramrammarrx n IDE MD �% �❑ � ❑dam I ., oC• 0HE= H„„ ,88 � c opo CIO mil o D ' f-1-1-',,, Ma glititz2=1 ° 47101 0a o 1.1 ❑ Q E❑� gWI 0 mo 0 Ilb r II D El 0 1 0 1 = DEEM E 172nc St N I ate/ ippoupj a0�o Proposed Hudson Annexation 0 300 600 Figure 3: ExistingStructures 9 Map 0 Structure ............. `'��`'""'�'" • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning — — — City Limits 1 : 3600 AkxDel RosarPiet sch,io Admnustrator r'-}` ; , ) Proposed Annex.Area � � 3October 2005 /$fTead/lt3 /1-ao4006 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 44/ed /Iv 200 ORDINANCE NO. 537 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM R-18 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL 18 DU PER ACRE, KING COUNTY ZONING), R-12 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL 12 DU PER ACRE, KING COUNTY ZONING), AND R-8 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL 8 DU PER ACRE, KING COUNTY ZONING) TO R-8 (RESIDENTIAL 8 DU/AC; EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE, CITY OF RENTON ZONING); (HUDSON ANNEXATION; FILE NO.A-05-005). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, property owners within the annexation area petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330 and RCW 35A.14.340, the City held two public hearings to consider zoning for the area, with the first hearing held on June 5, 2006, and the second hearing held on November 20, 2006, and said zoning being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; and WHEREAS, said annexation having previously been approved subject to its effectuation on May 1, 2007, annexing the property to the City of Renton, such zoning shall be effective upon the date of annexation; 1 ORDINANCE NO. • NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to R-8 as hereinbelow specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the EDNSP Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said property, approximately 5.83 acres, is located in two sections; the smallest, some 2.02 acres, on the south side of SE 168th Street in the easternmost part of the annexation, and the largest, some 3.81 acres, on the west side of 108th Avenue SE, in the northernmost portion of the annexation site.] SECTION H. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1298:11/14/06:ma 2 EXHIBIT "A" HUDSON ANNEXATION PREZONE(R-8) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 22 through 25, inclusive, Block 4, Aker's Farms No. 5, as recorded in Volume 40 of Plats, Page 27, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT road (Benson Road S.); TOGETHER WITH the North quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; EXCEPT the west 767.8 feet thereof and the east 264.00 feet thereof; and EXCEPT road (SE 168th Street). , . t ' b 1 < ! ! ' ___----- , I „Th i SE 164th St ifrTh 1 i S 27th St 1_-7------------------ ---1 — , i i I \ cp (DI 1 ci) I (I) i 11 CD 1 \,...-:\+---.-----.--------7--- i ----- i 0 .. I . i . , i i i { SE_ Ii ID 1 , 1 li 1 , 11 ..._ . . >,. ... ; t...L.J i v) < 1 (../..) 1 i ____ ___i 1 f \ ,„ u , . , 1 \,...„ 1 >. 1 1 ›., 1 1 i 1 1 \ < 1 j 1 ‘ ‘CD' 1! c_ 1 I) \ 1 -4---, 1 —1—"' : ! LC) I (0 1 1 ri I rr-, .........) ' I (c) i .' \i' 1 c) ! ! , . { \ i , 1 L i 1 r ) 'N, EI 1 i I f I 1 1 / I h — -I ! 1 JL ! :, , _..„,., SI i 1 72n c Stj : I,: $1 172no St li F-- ' -7....1 - i i -----A ---1 / A . 11 _.,/// 1 LSE 173rc St -.....,\ I 7 . .......___,1 Proposed Hudson Annexation o 300 600 A-8 Zoningessiontz41-- ow- mom= - Annexation Area .. Economic Development,Nendiborlionds&Slrategic Planning — — — City Limits I : 3600 .ffie 4 Alelrech,nn Adattammtor i (: . • Proposed R-8 Zoning kt;.4: /S'`fead/43 //ao-2 a( CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON /990/Pd i/-17 WO(a ORDINANCE NO. ,Sa 38 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM R-18 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL 18 DU PER ACRE, KING COUNTY ZONING), R-12 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL 12 DU PER ACRE, KING COUNTY ZONING), AND R-8 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL 8 DU PER ACRE, KING COUNTY ZONING) TO R-10 (RESIDENTIAL 10 DU/AC; TEN DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE, CITY OF RENTON ZONING); (HUDSON ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-05-005). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, property owners within the annexation area petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330 and RCW 35A.14.340, the City held two public hearings to consider zoning for the area, with the first hearing held on June 5, 2006, and the second hearing held on November 20, 2006, and said zoning being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; and WHEREAS, said annexation having previously been approved subject to its effectuation on May 1, 2007, annexing the property to the City of Renton, such zoning shall be effective upon the date of annexation; 1 ORDINANCE NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to R-10 as hereinbelow specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the EDNSP Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said property, approximately 6.60 acres, is located in two sections, the smallest, some 1.90 acres, on the western side of 108m Avenue SE, and the largest, some 4.70 acres, on the east side of 108 ' Avenue SE, both south of SE 168m Street, if extended.] SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1297:11/14/06:ma 2 • EXHIBIT"A" HUDSON ANNEXATION PREZONE(R-10) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 20 and 21, Block 4, Aker's Farms No. 5, as recorded in Volume 40 of Plats, Page 27, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion of Lot 21 conveyed to King County by Deed for road(Benson Road S.), recorded under King County Rec. No. 7903140910; TOGETHER WITH the west 767.8 feet of the North quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; EXCEPT roads (Benson Road S. and SE168th Street). 1 a) I r . . i , 1 I > 1 ; 1 I . I i I i --))---7/ 1 SE 164t1 St 'T--- I ( 1 4_________ I(((7) (I i, S 27th St I' —, ------ "--- ------ —i . II ,D ,, ,..._____________ --Li Lui i -___...........-_ m._ u-) i i I : s 1 i 0 AID i ' 1 1 i I 0/2 1 "<( I i 1 i 1 1 Cr) ' i Cr) • 1 LU ,SE 166thi I -, „.............__ 1 _ ,--- i I ! . 1 iI . I ! .„--- ; iiiliti H 1 i i li 1 1 I 1 I I 0 i ! j ( 0:_-_ - --- ---.I 1- - i , v) 1 i i'l 'Q) 1 i 1 • > i -,z( i i < i 1 i i 1 , ........._... ...... .'..... ...,... ._ \c) 1 ! i . f 1 f , --rl c--- i 1 (--- 1 i (---=.-, _.....,.... 1 I - Ns\ -÷-/ c_o i I \ 1 c:) ii• cpii . • .,......_ I „---r- \ 1 ri \ i i \\)\\\\\ \ \ ! i I i 1 1 " 1 . .,_, i 'II 1 ' -•-------. i - i S:: 1172nc St d t-_ , 1 11 1 -72nc St --------7 ---- r • :---- I i ...._) ! ' 11 NNN N., 1 LS173rc St , . . ....._ _ Proposed Hudson Annexation o 300 600 t R-10 Zoning - Annexation Area --118 .-- "M6221a1M iom Planning — — — City Limits 1 : 3600 0 V'il.rir-Vdm'am— Proposed R-10 Zoning Mr!,20* / .7treadi4q //ao-.W CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON #4/ed //-22-020‘ ORDINANCE NO. 5,23 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 2006 BUDGET TO AUTHORIZE $35,000 FROM INCREASED REVENUES TO OFFSET INCREASED OVERTIME AND LABOR COSTS DUE TO WEATHER RELATED CROWD CONTROL AND THE EXTENDED SOCKEYE SEASON. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Appropriation to the Community Services Fund is hereby increased as follows: Fund 2006 Original Budget 2006 Adjusted Budget Increase Budget 101 $4,220 $35,000 $39,220 Increased overtime and labor costs were funded through the Recreation Division Intermittent Salaries& Wages Swimming Pool account. SECTION IL This project will be funded by increased revenues. SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage, approval, and five(5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor 1 ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1291:11/01/06:ma 2 /5/-readiny #ao-aoo6 ap //-27-2%% CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 502610 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY INCREASING PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsections 4-1-180.D.1-4 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, 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: 1. WATER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES: Type of Water Service and Fee Repairs Water meter tests for 3/4 " $50.00 to 2 " meter Water meter tests for meters Time and materials cost greater than 2 " ($60.00 deposit) Open and close fire Time and materials hydrants for fire flow tests conducted by others Water service disconnection $250.00 (cut at main) Meter resets $95.00 Repair of damage to service $225.00 Water main connections $535.00 Water main cut and cap $1,000.00 Water $65.00 each quality/inspection/purity tests Specialty water tests(lead, Cost of test plus $70.00 copper, etc.) processing fee Water turn ons/offs after $185.00 hours 1 ORDINANCE NO. Installation of isolation Time and materials valve $2,000.00 deposit New water line chlorination $250.00 plus $0.15 per fee lineal foot for any footage after the first two hundred fifty(250)lineal feet Miscellaneous water Time and materials installation fees 2. WATER METER INSTALLATION FEES —CITY INSTALLED: The following fees are payable at the time of application for water meter installation(s). Water Meter Size Fee 3/4 " meter installed by City $2,260.00(full installation of stub service within City limits and meter) $240.00(meter drop in) 3/4 " meter installed by City $2,430.00(full installation of stub service outside City limits and meter) $240.00(meter drop in) 1 " meter installed by City $2,430.00(full installation of stub service and meter) $250.00(meter drop in) 1-1/2 " meter installed by City $3,600.00(full installation of stub service and meter) $435.00(meter drop in) 2 "meter installed by City $4,030.00(full installation of stub service and meter) $550.00(meter drop in) 3. WATER METER PROCESSING FEES—APPLICANT INSTALLED: For meters larger than two inches (2 "), the applicant must provide materials and installs. The City charges a two hundred twenty dollar($220.00)processing fee at the time of meter application. 4. WASTEWATER AND SURFACE WATER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES: Type of New Service Wastewater Permit Fee Surface Water Permit Fee Residential $150.00 each connection $150.00 each connection Commercial $175.00 each connection $175.00 each connection Industrial $200.00 each connection $200.00 each connection Repair of any of the above $50.00 each service $50.00 each connection Cut and Cap/Demolition $120.00 each service $120.00 each service Permit Ground Water Discharge $170.00 N/A (temporary connection to wastewater system for one- time discharge of 2 ORDINANCE NO. contaminated ground water to 50,000 gallons) Ground Water Discharge $170.00+Billed for current N/A (temporary connection to Renton and King County wastewater system for wastewater rate on discharge of contaminated discharged amount (meter ground water over 50,000 provided by property gallons) owner) SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1289:10/23/06:ma 3 1--ready/2 ll-ao 4oa6 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTONdop /�a7�oo6 ORDINANCE NO. ,50111/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTERS 2, 4, AND 11 OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY PERMITTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND TO INCORPORATE THREE PRE-EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS THAT CLARIFY THE WIRELESS REGULATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-2-060.P 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: 1 ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UC- UC- N1 N2 P.WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES _ Lattice towers support structures H48 AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 Macro facility antennas AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 H H Micro facility antennas PP PP P PP PP PP PPPPPPPP Mini facility antennas P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 AD AD R R Minor modifications to existing P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P P wireless communication facilities AD AD Monopole I support structures on H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 AD46 P44 P44 P44 AD46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 private property Monopole I support structures on AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 P44 P44 P44 AD46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 public right-of-way Monopole II support structures H48 AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 Parabolic Antennas—Large H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 AD46 P44 P44 P44 AD46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 2 SECTION II. The subsections on"Wireless Communication Facilities"in Sections 4-2-070.A through S 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"are hereby amended to read as follows: 4-2-070.A RESOURCE CONSERVATION (RC) Uses allowed in the RC Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Parabolic Antennas—Large H#45 4-2-070.B RESIDENTIAL-1 DU/AC (R-1) Uses allowed in the R-1 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Parabolic antennas-Large H#45 3 ORDINANCE NO. 4-2-070.0 RESIDENTIAL-4 DU/AC(R-4) Uses allowed in the R-4 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Parabolic antennas-Large H#45 4-2-070.D RESIDENTIAL-8 DU/AC (R-8) Uses allowed in the R-8 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Parabolic antennas-Large H#45 4-2-070.E RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED HOMES (RMH) Uses allowed in the RMH Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Parabolic antennas-Large H#45 4 ORDINANCE NO. 4-2-070.F RESIDENTIAL-10 DU/AC (R-10) Uses allowed in the R-10 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Parabolic antennas-Large H#45 4-2-070.G RESIDENTIAL-14 DU/AC (R-14) Uses allowed in the R-14 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Parabolic antennas -Large H#45 4-2-070.H RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY(RM) Uses allowed in the RM Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H#48 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property AD#46 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Monopole II support structures H#48 Parabolic antennas—Large AD#46 5 ORDINANCE NO. 4-2-070.1 COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) Uses allowed in the CN Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H#48 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property AD#46 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#46 Monopole II support structures H#48 Parabolic antennas-Large AD#46 4-2-070.J CENTER VILLAGE (CV) Uses allowed in the CV Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H#48 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property P#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P#44 Monopole II support structures H#48 Parabolic antennas - Large P#44 6 ORDINANCE NO. 4-2-070.K COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA) Uses allowed in the CA Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures AD#47 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property P#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P#44 Monopole II support structures AD#47 Parabolic antennas—Large P#44 4-2-070.L CENTER DOWNTOWN (CD) Uses allowed in the CD Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H#48 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property AD#46 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#46 Monopole II support structures H#48 Parabolic antennas—Large AD#46 7 ORDINANCE NO. 4-2-070.M COMMERCIAL OFFICE(CO) Uses allowed in the CO Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures AD#47 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property P#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P#44 Monopole II support structures AD#47 Parabolic antennas—Large P#44 4-2-070.N COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL (COR) Uses allowed in the COR Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H#48 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property AD#46 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#46 Monopole II support structures H#48 Parabolic antennas—Large AD#46 8 ORDINANCE NO. 4-2-070.0 INDUSTRIAL LIGHT(IL) Uses allowed in the IL Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures AD#47 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property P#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P#44 Monopole II support structures AD#47 Parabolic antennas—Large P#44 4-2-070.P INDUSTRIAL MEDIUM (IM) Uses allowed in the IM Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures AD#47 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property P#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P#44 Monopole II support structures AD#47 Parabolic antennas-Large P#44 9 ORDINANCE NO. 4-2-070.Q INDUSTRIAL HEAVY(IH) Uses allowed in the IH Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures AD#47 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property P#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P#44 Monopole II support structures AD#47 Parabolic antennas-Large P#44 4-2-070.R URBAN CENTER NORTH 1 (UC-N1) Uses allowed in the UC-N1 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas H Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas AD-P Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P AD 4-2-070.S URBAN CENTER NORTH 2 (UC-N2) Uses allowed in the UC-N2 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas H Micro facility antennas p Mini facility antennas AD-P Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P AD 10 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION III. Note 45 of Section 4-2-080.A 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: 45. For Monopoles Proposed on Private Property: May be allowed via a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit provided that the site is over one acre in size and the facility has minimum setbacks of one hundred feet(100') from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; otherwise the use is prohibited. For Monopoles Proposed on Public Right of Way: May be allowed via an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Right of Way Use Permit. SECTION IV. Note 48 of Section 4-2-080.A 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: 48. A Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit is required. However, this use is typically pProhibited if located within three hundred feet(300') of an RC, R-1, R- 4, R-8, R-10, or R-14 Zone, unless the Development Services Division determines that all residentially zoned property within three hundred feet(300) of the proposed facility is undevelopable due to critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), in which case the new wireless support structure can be reviewed as : -- - - . . . . . - a Hearing Examiner Ceonditional Uuse Ppermit. 11 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION V. Section 4-4-140.F of Chapter 4, Property Development 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: F. STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL TYPES OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES: 1. Equipment Shelters or Cabinets: a) Location: Accessory equipment facilities used to house wireless communication equipment and associated cabling should be located within buildings or placed underground when possible. A shelter or cabinet used to house radio • - . ' - . .. ..- . - .. . . • . : . . . . . ; . . However, in those cases where it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the reviewing official that the equipment When-they cannot be located in buildings or underground, equipment shelters or cabinets shall be fenced, screened and/or landscaped to the satisfaction of the reviewing official. in conformance with RMC 1 4 070, Landscaping. b) Landscaping and Screening: Landscaping, for accessory equipment located on private property shall include a minimum fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring landscape buffer around the accessory equipment facility. Accessory equipment facilities located on the roof of any building need not be landscaped but shall be enclosed so as to be shielded from view. Accessory equipment located on public right of way shall be screened and/or landscaped as determined by the reviewing official 12 ORDINANCE NO. through the Conditional Use Permit Process. Accessory equipment facilities may not be enclosed with exposed metal surfaces. c) Size: The applicant must provide documentation to the reviewing official that the size of any accessory equipment is the minimum possible necessary to meet the provider's service needs. 2. Visual Impact: Site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses and the zone district to the extent consistent with the function of the communications equipment. Wireless communication towers shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site to the extent practical. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impact of the site to the surrounding area. located in buildings, equipment shelters or cabinets shall be fenced, screened and - - • - P . . • - metal surfaces. 13 ORDINANCE NO. 3 4. Maximum Noise Levels: No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in levels above forty five(45) dB as measured from the nearest property line on which the attached wireless communication facility is located. Operation of a back-up power generator in the event of power failure or the testing of a back-up generator between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. are exempt from this standard. No testing of back-up generators shall occur between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. 4 5. Fencing: Security fencing, if used, shall be painted or coated with non-reflective color. Fencing shall comply with the requirements listed in RMC 4-4-040, Fences and Hedges. 5 6. Lighting: Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the governing authority may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views. Security lighting for the equipment shelters or cabinets and other on-the-ground ancillary equipment is also permitted, as long as it is appropriately down shielded to keep light within the boundaries of the site. 6 7. Advertising Prohibited: No lettering, symbols, images, or trademarks large enough to be legible to occupants of vehicular traffic on any adjacent roadway shall be placed on or affixed to any part of a telecommunications tower, antenna array or antenna, other than as required by FCC regulations regarding tower registration or other applicable law. Antenna arrays may be located on previously approved signs or billboards without alteration of the existing advertising or sign. 7 8. Building Standards: Wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to meet or exceed the most recent Electronic Industries 14 ORDINANCE NO. Association/Telecommunications Industries Association(EIA/TIA) 222 Revision F Standard entitled: "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures" (or equivalent), as it may be updated or amended. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Building Official shall be provided with an engineer's certification that the support structure's design meets or exceeds those standards. A 8 9. Radio Frequency Standards: The applicant shall ensure that the WCF will not cause localized interference with the reception of area television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City finds that the WCF interferes with such reception, and if such interference is not remedied within thirty(30) days, the City may revoke or modify the this permit. 9. Special Requirements for Equipment Shelters/Cabinets within the Public Right-of-Way: All equipment and cabinets within public right-of-way are subject to the approval of the Development Services Division and shall be as small and unobtrusive as is practicable. SECTION VI. Section 4-4-140.G of Chapter 4, Property Development 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: 15 ORDINANCE NO. G. STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF WIRELESS FACILITIES: For definitions of specific types of wireless communication facilities, see RMC 4- 11-230. Development standards for specific types of wireless communication facilities shall be as follows: 16 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES In addition to individual zone requirements unless otherwise specified below MICRO MINI MACRO FACILITY MONOPOLE I MONOPOLE II LATTICE FACILITY FACILITY TOWERS A Micro Facility shall be located on existing buildings, poles or other existing A Mini Facility may A Macro Facility may support be located on be located on structures.A buildings and buildings and Micro Facility structures provided structures provided Location on may locate on that the immediate that the immediate NA NA NA Buildings buildings and interior wall or interior wall or ceiling structures ceiling adjacent to to the facility is not a provided that the facility is not a designated the interior wall designated residential space. or ceiling residential space. immediately adjacent to the facility is not designated residential space. All wireless All wireless All wireless All wireless All wireless All wireless communication communication communication communication communication communication facilities and facilities and facilities and attached facilities and facilities and facilities and Maximum attached attached wireless wireless attached wireless attached wireless attached wireless Height and wireless communication communication communication communication communication Area communication facilities must facilities must comply facilities must facilities must facilities must facilities must comply with the with the Airport comply with the comply with the comply with the comply with Airport zoning zoning regulations, Airport zoning Airport zoning Airport zoning the Airoort regulations. as listed as listed in RMC 4-3- reaulations. as listed reaulations. as listed reaulations. as listed 17 ORDINANCE NO. zoning in RMC 4-3-020. 020. in RMC 4-3-020. in RMC 4-3-020. in RMC 4-3-020. regulations, as Mini Facilities shall Macro Facilities shall Monopole I Facility Monopole II Facility Lattice Tower listed in RMC comply with the comply with the Maximum Height: Maximum Height: 35 Monopole-I-I Facility 4-3-020. height limitation height limitation Less than 60 feet for feet higher than the Maximum Height: 35 Micro Facilities specified for all specified for all zones all zones. regular permitted feet higher than the shall comply zones except as except as follows: maximum height for regular permitted with the height follows: Mini Macro Facilities may Macro Facilities are the applicable maximum height for limitation Facilities may exceed the height the largest attached zoning district, or the applicable specified for all exceed the height limitation by 16 feet, communication 150 feet, whichever zoning district, or zones except limitation by 10 feet, or in the case of facilities allowed on is less. 150 feet, whichever as follows: or in the case of existing structures a Monopole I is less. Micro Facilities existing structures the antennas may Facility. may exceed the antennas may extend 16 feet above the height extend 10 feet the existing limitation by 6 above the existing structures. feet, or in the structure. case of existing structures the antennas may extend 6 feet above the existing structure. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure. 18 ORDINANCE NO. Antenna Heigh Antennas-may-net exceed more than 15 feet above their monopole,-lattice other structure. Antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or up to 4 Macro Facilities are inches in diameter the largest permitted Macro Facilities are may be a attached wireless the largest permitted component of a communication attached wireless Placement of an Placement of an Monopole I Facility. facilities allowed on communication antenna on a antenna on a a Monopole II facilities allowed on Maximum nonconformingnonconforminga Lattice Tower. facility. Height and structure shall not structure shall not be wireless Antenna Height: Area See above. be considered to be considered to be an Antenna Height: g (Continued) an expansion of the expansion of the support-stFueture exceed more than nonconforming nonconforming shall-not-be exceed more than 15 feet above their structure. structure. calculated as part of 15 feet above their supporting structure, the-height-of-thesulaPertinstfuGtur-el. monopole, lattice eemmunisations , b other structure. suptoprt tr_.sJtY1e,-erct'ure. other structure. Fotr'example the , maximum-height-of be installed on the support-strusture could be 15 feet, makm ki he height of the support structure and 19 ORDINANCE NO. feet plus 15 feet). Antenna/Structure Height: Antennas the-Monopole II Antenna/Structure wireless Height: Antennas communications that whish extend support structure above the Lattice Antennas that Tower wireless extend above the communications Monopole II wireless support structure communications shall not be support structure calculated as part of shall not be the height of the calculated as part of wireless the height of the communications Maximum wireless support structure. Height and communications For-example,the Area See above. See above. See above. See above. support structure. (Continued) For example, the a Lattice Tower shall me*ina-urn-height-fo be-140-feet-and-the shall be 50 fee+ be installed on the height of antennas support structure which-maybe installed on the mak ., . ng the support-structure height of the^ support making-the structureand maximum permitted antennas(165 feet height of the support 150 feet plus 15 structure and feet: antennas (165 feet 150 feet plus 15 feet) 20 ORDINANCE NO. Maximum Antenna Projection Above Support 645 feet. 101-5 feet. 1646 feet. 161-5 feet. 1615 feet. 1615 feet. Structure, Monopole, Tower or Building Shall be same color as the Shall be same color Shall be same color existing as the existing as the existing building, pole building, pole or building, pole or Color or support NA NA NA structure on support structure on support structure on which it is which it is proposed which it is proposed proposed to be to be located. to be located. located. See subsection F of See subsection F of See subsection F of this Section, this Section, this Section, Standards. Standards. Standards. RMC 4 4 070, RMC 44 070, RMC 4 4 070, N/A N/A N/A .Lanciseapin9.A Landscaping.A Landscaping.A minimum minimum minimum Landscaping See See subsection F of landscaping area of landscaping area of landscaping area of &Screening section-Fthis_seGti-GRT15 feet shall be 15 feet shall be 15 feet shall be of this Section, Standards- Sys. required required required Sas surrounding the surrounding the surrounding the facility, or equivalent facility, or equivalent facility, or equivalent screening as screening as screening as approved by the approved by the approved by the Reviewing Reviewing Reviewing Official. Official. Official. Landscaping shall Landscaping shall Landscaping shall 21 ORDINANCE NO. include trees, include trees, include trees, shrubs and ground shrubs and ground shrubs and ground cover.The required cover.The required cover.The required landscaped areas landscaped areas landscaped areas shall include an shall include an shall include an automated irrigation automated irrigation automated irrigation system. system. system. I 22 SECTION VI. Subsection B of"Wireless Communication Facilities—Terms Related To"of Definitions W, of Section 4-11-230 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: B. Antenna: Any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals. Antennas include the following types: 1. Dish Antenna: see Parabolic Antenna. 2. Omni-Directional Antenna(also known as a"Whip"Antenna): transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a three hundred sixty degree (360°) radial pattern, and which is up to sixteen feet(16') in height and up to four inches (4") in diameter. 3. Directional Antenna(also known as a"Panel"Antenna): transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than three hundred sixty degrees (360°). 4. Panel Antenna: see Directional Antenna. 5. Parabolic Antenna(also known as a"Dish"Antenna): is a bowl- shaped device for the reception and/or transmission of radio frequency communications signals in a specific directional pattern. 6. Parabolic Antenna, Large: A parabolic antenna greater than 39.37 inches in diameter but not to exceed 200" in diameter. 7. Whip Antenna: see Omni-Directional Antenna. 23 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1275:7/24/06:ma 24