Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-166 e CITY (? RENTON .a� f Planning/Building/Public Works Department IMMID Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 22, 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on March 20,2001: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT LUA-00-166,ECF,R This proposal is a non-project action to amend Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Text. The amendment upgrades the,CapitalFacilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from°2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary, Growth Projections, Bud`get,Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water, Parks & Recreation, Public Safety, Fire, and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. Location: Citywide. • Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed inwriting on or before 5:00 PM April 9, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady.Way; Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4=8-110. .Additional information:regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425.)-430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-6575. For the Environmental Review Committee; #14601/6/14 ' Rebecca Lind Principal Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(Ordinance) US Army Corp. of Engineers Agcncyih\ 19012 Q 01 ~ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 'tltPtl l[ h Thic saner mntnine groz.must/Had mnterinl 9n%nnm rnne mor . ,, r___ ,_<_7_1,__ • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00.188,ECF,R This proposal le a non-project action to amend Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Text.The 1 amendment upgrades the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2000. Amendments are proposed to the Summary,Growth Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water,Parks&Recreation,Public 1 Safety,Fire,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plane.Location:Citywide. ' THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE - ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 9,2001. Appeals must be sled In writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430.8510. e J • • • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(426)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION I Please Include theprdject'NUMBER When-calling Tor:pup erflle-Idenufieafon. II - CERTIFICATION I, frijir-e..e. DZattc-c) , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on . MG1 v. 2-3� Tan • Signed: ee ATTEST: Subcribed om before me,a Norta7 Public,in and for the State of Washington resi •' in ,on the day of 0/�j-1 t �40I . .----1-1) s, 92‘rd_ rytcJ--t--Z5-> , , ."C ' CoMilAiSSI' '°;;ES MARLYN KAMCNEFF JUNE MY AIP''3INTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 r` . '1 CITY OF RENTON _. DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-00-166,ECF,R APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is a non-project action to amend Comprehensive Plan Capii Facilities Element Text. The amendment upgrades the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth relate facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary, Grow Projections, Budget Projections, Transportation, Water, Wastewater Surface Water, Parks & Recreation, Public Safel Fire, and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may b involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 9, 2001. Appeal must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Sectio. 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: March 26, 2001 DATE OF DECISION: March 20, 2001 • SIGNATURES: regg Zi y�r� rma ,drar DATE‘ /i 0/6 i Departm f P nnin /Buildin /Public Works P 9 9 Tid..2(o ( i Shepherd, Administr for DATE Cq munity Services Department / L - ,-,1- /2D-4 ( 2-7 6 Lee heele , Fire Chi DATE Renton Fire Department ercsignature AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Barbara Alther, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, DETERMINATION Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal ENVIRONMENTALCOMMITTEE REVIEW newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King RENTON,WASHINGTON County. The Environmental Review CommThe notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in the South S has issued a Determination of of Non-Significance for the following County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to project under the authority of the the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a RCAPITAL Municipal FACILITIESI Ca ELEMENT CPA LUA-00-166,ECF,R Capital Facilities Element CPA Non-project action to amend Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities as published on: 3/26/01 element text. Location:Citywide. Appeals of the environmental The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of determination must be filed in writing $46.88, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. on or before 5:00 PM April 9, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 Legal Number 8865 application fee with:Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4 8 /L_ 110. Additional information regarding Le Clerk, South CountyJournal the appeal process may be obtained g from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. Published in the South County Subscribed and sworn before me on this 3U• ay of iin01,411, 2001 Journal March 26,2001.8865 `\\\\0`c F1..... E��i�i 11oraI1y :y_ • G AU8 1.‘c = Notary Public of the State of Washington ar� residing in Renton 6 2 i..**` King County, Washington ///7PIWASN,,``o STAFF City of Renton REPORT Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE: March 20, 2001 Project Name: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan Project Number: LUA 00-166 ECF Project Manager: Rebecca Lind Project Description: This proposal is a non-project action to amend Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Text. The amendment upgrades the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary,Growth Projections,Budget Projections, Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water,Parks&Recreation,Public Safety,Fire,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. Project Location: Citywide Exist. Bldg.Area gsf N/A Site Area: N/A B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: X DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. X Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. None Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations None T-IERC • City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment Environs, 1 Review Committee Staff Report PROJECT NAME LUA-93-XXX,SA,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF(INSERT DECISION DATE) Page2 of 2 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? No impacts were identified for this non-project legislative action. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 9th(14 days from the date of publication). Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. T-1 ERC City of Renton, 1 partment of Planning/Building/Public Work... ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: f-'c-tile COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-166,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14, 2001 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Economic Development PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: City-Wide Comp Plan Amendment WORK ORDER NO: 78788 LOCATION: City-Wide SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment updates the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary, Growth Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water, Parks& Recreation, Public Safety, Fire, and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1 1:,.\4 Signature Of Director or. thorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Renton: L;1 partment of Planning/Building/Public Work... -• ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:3.v-{- -1,01,1 SPAk(& COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-166,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14,2001 O APPLICANT: City of Renton/Economic Development PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind ® O PROJECT TITLE: City-Wide Comp Plan Amendment WORK ORDER NO: 78788 O LOCATION: City-Wide \. SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment updates the Capital Facilities Element to•.•rese future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summa 'tt owth Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water,Parks&Recreation, Public Safety,0; -,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air _Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS /Vv/ve- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact c areas wher additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. S ature of Dire or Authorized Represeggr Date Routing Rev.10/f City of Renton ..;impartment of Planning/Building/Public Work;; i ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING.DEPARTMENT: `Pt g COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-166,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14,2001 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Economic Development PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: City-Wide Comp Plan Amendment WORK ORDER NO: 78788 LOCATION: City-Wide SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment updates the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary,Growth Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water,Parks&Recreation, Public Safety, Fire,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics , Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use i_ Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Adr y� / s iy/71.ez/& a/LC /9a4(‘' I�.eivi3 'CFAS " 192 32 33 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS it e_ fi3O cAkyltee- A 4.d C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS •Yr/Le,LE_ "i () We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact o, areas where itional information is ded to properly as ess this proposal. 110/101 Sign re of Director or Autho ize epresentative Date Routing Rev.10/9: City of Rentt: .-.repaltment of Planning/Building/Public Wot-;:a ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ?lay\ ,ULi W- COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-166,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14,2001 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Economic Development PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: City-Wide Comp Plan Amendment WORK ORDER NO: 78788 LOCATION: City-Wide SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment updates the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary, Growth Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water, Parks&Recreation, Public Safety, Fire,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet ,,,, // 14,000 Feet /VON& B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS A/AU: C. ,'C//ODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information �islneeeded to properly assess this proposal. 2/100-0 Si ha e o f Direc of r or Authorized Representative Date 9 P Routin Rev.10/93 City of Rente.. ...apartment of Planning/Building/Public Wol rt.._ ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Tl4"e___prGUfwtlov COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-166,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14,2001 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Economic Development PROJECT MANAGER: Re 1 Lin E 11 v(J E PROJECT TITLE: City-Wide Comp Plan Amendment WORK ORDER NO: 7878E U _ `/ LOCATION: City-Wide SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): A FEB 1 5 2001 LJ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment updates the Capital Facilities-N , -5r-future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to thh U t'riary;`Gro; rth Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water, Parks&Recreation, ublic'Safety_;Fir_,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 4 4I B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS A .)-4 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS � �b Rai ; iiing /0.±"[ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where.'ditional inform is needed to properly assess this proposal. a,, ,60 ) Sign- . Director or Authorized R resentative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Rentoy;-Li6pattment of Planning/Building/Public Work. ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:—MuAs \ADJ-16-Y\ COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-166,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14,2001 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Economic Development PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: City-Wide Comp Plan Amendment WORK ORDER NO: 78788 et h.. LOCATION: City-Wide `Nr` R 0,4, SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A k� SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment updates the Capital Faci lement toad e .;future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to 4yyp�nnmary, f h Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water, Parks&Recreation, Publit9' t Fire,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. 'WON A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Al ,s4 `` Lvi B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS / // C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS /v We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inf rmati'n i�ed to properly assess this proposal. �4d Signs u e •,f i irector or Authorized Representative Date Routing / Rev.10/93 i s City of Renton;uepartment of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:<j o f U.Y.�.s OMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 23, 2 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-166,ECF " DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14,2001 IN,. p,. APPLICANT: City of Renton/Economic Development PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PE� ��t"'t.�, %IV PROJECT TITLE: City-Wide Comp Plan Amendment WORK ORDER NO: 78788 �k✓� 16 �4.,„ O LOCATION: City-Wide flip, SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A _ ifrie/(J4, SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment updates the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary,Growth Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water, Parks&Recreation, Public Safety, Fire,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet /t/0/t/E B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Alaue- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inform tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. 0 it / Sign u of Director or Au orized Representative Date Routi g Rev.10/93 City of Renton: .:,apartment of Planning/Building/Public WorL ' ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:'�� p6nruAA1 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-166,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14,2001. APPLICANT: City of Renton/Economic Development PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: City-Wide Comp Plan Amendment WORK ORDER NO: 78788 LOCATION: City-Wide SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment updates the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary, Growth Projections, Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water, Parks&Recreation, Public Safety, Fire,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet etmhC4pat{k.. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional in ti n 's n d d to properly assess this proposal. 2 7A 0 1 S Direc Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 • • +®+ Comments on the above application must be submitted N writing to Rebecca Lind,Project Manager,Strategic Planning • Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on February 28,2001.If you have questions about this NOTICE OF APPLICATION proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mall,contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and v411 be notified of any decision on AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- this project. SIGNIFICANCE(DNS) CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425)430.6575' PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION bATE: February 14,2001 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-166,ECF APPLICATION NAME: Amendment to The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposal Is a non project action to amend Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Toot.The amendment upgrades the Capital Facilities Element to address future growth related facilities anticipated during the period from 2001 to 2006. Amendments are proposed to the Summary,Growth Projections,Budget Projections,Transportation,Water,Wastewater Surface Water,Parks&Recreation,Public Safety,Fire,and Economic Development Capital Facilities Plans. PROJECT LOCATION: City-Wide • OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be Issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Detemllnation of Non-Significance(DNS).A 14 day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 18,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 14,2001 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review Other Permits which may be required: None Requested Studies: None Location where application may be reviewed: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 I • PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing tentatively scheduled for May 2nd before the Renton Planning Commission in Renton Council Chambers.Hearings begin at 7:00 P.M.on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hal located at 1055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The proposed amendments support the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by identifying projects needed to service growth anticipated in the Plan Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Renton Comprehensive Plan EIS Development Regulations If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete Used For Project Mitigation: None �� this form and return to:City of Renton,Development Planning,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Proposed Mitigation Measures: None File No.:LUA-00.166,ECF—Amendment to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: NOTICE OF APPLICATION NOTICE OF APPLICATION - CERTIFICATION • • I, l Vie (�Gu f) , hereby certify that -3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on . r / `t, boy Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing 6i j4.y- ,on the a✓�d day of ..�..-ter^—� --^�.-�•^-�., • ��...lf %in 1, . •i--a'a, f F'- Via. • ,- J �t - / L; .11:)Je11.2161.21NE -.scu'Ai, lry,r APPOIMENT EXPIRES:6-2943d31.N �� _,�.�•�ri�t.�.�';, •�� ': a��N�,-�F.;rCITII.'�OF ON: M:..�«�� " �.:. emu:�.,r=,��. ����<' ��, e ;'�;:; ;Yr .,A.,,t'i,' '�•" �e_.vs�;F.,c•+�: ENT�,:.yn, �i i.8:�"<..,:�,r "'rf,r;'=:f",:t�A�:d�;r ::�°. ':a„�`�;W-.'c.�� � .v„ro. .r� "3;P;•'. -.: p,`i'..�-< ,.�.�. �Kn, ".r.. r. �;hyea•. a'..x...f.<aa.� -a :,a_> Via;•: ..r a, yr-T,!� .,r,l..M34>°a�`.;- �a§� ,;,':s,a.,. °� ..s,�. a,'§x?`e ��. �; t,�, ,: x: . " u,l�.,,� :.a .,.•'�d�'R?, .,d�: .�..yr>. - '''�� .�;. Z:i:Y.:,�;?•e«,�, <"4'- •.G� .-1< � �t: -' 4q,a•,? ,,,k, �V,;o::^ '�.r�t:. .fit�: '4re 5 $ _ ^',E„ K, .,.E.. ,''�'•�x'' d.ea<`.'•. «2°: ''.�' j,, .' .LAN D .t1 , " ti t��.f;- � SSE �.P E RM�1T�:� �.�.d ',�.parr �k' > •>, ',��:,� ` Y`^ till 4.v� -„d k� <r X ,P iF� Ewa o i'>j M1 vs�r • ,�� AS,7ER ;�, APPLI� t'i.-1'�<:=:.,,..._.d.,Y=;.i:',;�:.�r4�,.�5.,.�`K:#"�`:.,am.,.;M c�:�:.,�. ...;:.�».;.;,.�..-..,=.M:T3:�F'Yiz,... . ...,...., '�'-' s< ._��<:•s�'�''� , :P;ftOPE�� Note:,if there'is"more: e ; thSA'n or*0,gat owr 0 please attacti:an:F. additional'notarized'MasterApplication..for each:owner.=.>-r" ..-s-_ °` ;',b v PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: ddJIC/1 C ?^ PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): <<` TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): OAF •w,`APPLICANT=`( f:other'th'an'c caner ;,r � ,� /� ��i,G PROPOSED LAND USES: ti 532 NAME: C g -Re ram- h11 <0 COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: IJA ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION(if applicable):n' CITY: ZIP: Nit it EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 0v'74 PROPOSED ZONING(if applicable): CONTAC:T;RERSON ,.` {011 NAME: R etJr?eCix, f t SITE AREA(SQ.FT.OR ACREAGE): fro COMPANY(if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: / �V/1 ADDRESS: 1 ° 5. I�T 6fR` b") tj IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? CITY: "e. ZIP: u0s ••� IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER and E-MAIL ADDRESS: li, f • -; :;,��5 rxw`'�,.^ ,,,T ,.�,,..,�,,.,��_- ...,,.. a -n.�.� �m.�- '-t,«,^`�°s.',�,•�«:�"+�s��' + s^�<a, :A� „ : G L DES,.; 10N1.C? ERt ,A A :i):1 ;`LE A__- ,-, . _ .,,. ,,.. _ RaP.�,� . ., (. ch:¢se ate:sheetnitf necessaryy,. ,,,: : yn e.p.. J _ Lea>.'-.. I �r TY,PE-OF-'AP P-,LICAT tON"s&� ':'`4f o i, T� �i. 5+.` r as � ,9..,;-'< °5. het, j��,.r. hectk'a �,�r tia" �i�J"lcat on�' es° - �hat:a'` ��- Ci �staff;witl;tlle.. ,... ���.; . ...... ..t. .�...... ....P�p.. , �. . . » ..^ .. n teirmine`fees ::��:'. a a- •�J"'a r .< n.., « , .. h ,,fir" , _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _REZONE $ _LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _SPECIAL PERMIT $ _SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _PRELIMINARY PLAT $ _SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _FINAL PLAT $ _GRADE& FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU.YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _PRELIMINARY —WAIVER $ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION — MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _BINDING SITE PLAN $ iHORELINE REVIEWS: _SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ _EXEMPTION $No Charge _ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ _REVISION $ AFFIDAVlT'OF-:OWNERS IP'=. (Print Name) ,declare that I am(please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,_the uthorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization),and that the foregoing statements and answers erein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ��/ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me,a Notary Public,in and eC�� i (i�/� , for the State of residing at Name of Owner/Representative) ,on the day of 20 Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of Notary Public) xr;:' J.E. ti n to o""m ted.ti�°`4;.Ci Sta k ff` ,,(\ w�, lwsA :z (I'mµ [ � r.,%r AP-tJ�.�.:C -=ggCU`=A: .CU- C n..�,�„<. g .:�, 4 ,`r_ �..t;a: e,:.'•Fy,: :w:xx3;.n'�.,;"io't'^3�,J?:.;:,",:{_„et:�x.. �';r.�%,.,—» � •..k,�v iu...,;j�•'::,f'.; ,j t,:i '?: ..MNP-='``FPU_D:^'`FP-=PI?R :`RUMP.. SA A=:;SA=H'�:-SHPL=A -1SHPL�=H" SP•r;SM:-'.SME .TP"°YV_ A-:-.V=B�;.V H '-=W::.- .'. ii: •P"'z ,ly. S.g r Yr,{•r ,.F,i:."'"✓err .�,. - -i2;%:,tP:^('. '.'d's"' rr',..��t,,.,.. ,,,,, ; wry ''',�-"�"�';=-, �A�aFEES,�� w TOTAL POS-• "G . ,. r� .r • ,< +, �7w�.' s._,F>_;°.:., .., ,...x,.z ,r,.,, a!$,.=..,.r': 3m,t-.. , .., ..,..; 'N'.,'i{S{ .. . .,.,, ._ ,.., ASTERAP.DOC REVISED 03/00 , 111111111111111:1ENVIRONMENTALZHECKLISTEMMEN PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write"do not know" or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC 18 2000 RECEIVED Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:�i 0,4.� d w ea th oc ie6) G/e nm o 2. Name of applicant:/J � 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: radnizr 4. Date checklist prepared: 100 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6-13 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. IllOrcjeci- 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. �� � rcl rtiCl4 V 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly %affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. 2 Environmental Checklist 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Oft e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project _ construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: MA 3 Environmental Checklist • 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: ik)R 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any(surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. 4 Environmental Checklist b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. • c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so,describe. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: w 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Pit c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. ►V�b d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: OVA 5 Environmental Checklist 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals:deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain MA, d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: fv, 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. 104 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. TO c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?� If so, describe. ►V- fip 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. JA 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: 9k)A 6 Environmental Checklist b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your pre;ect (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Ahk c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? IV e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? IV�O f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program c i:.'gnation of the site? Iv� h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmental!!! sensitive" area? If so, specify.IV�qq Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? /Jf 7 Environmental Checklist j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? YV,9 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mi�dddle, or low-income housing. k b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. IV c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: '.0. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), no thcluding antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. /V b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? fv� b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 1a 8 Environmental Checklist c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? V VPd d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,if any: 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational_uses? If so,describe. voA, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. i b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. I v4 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. _ 'v�6 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? IV4 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 9 • Environmental Checklist • d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Vv� e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. l g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire „ �� protection,11 police protection, health care, schools,other)? If so,generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 101 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. AA ► 0 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. tait C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: 'Re6c eki Date: IZ!Jul B.6 10 Environmental Checklist f J 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? A,l r z s [ 1 (*ANL CO. (Aka- reauk, e4- 1 tJ 501 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration .of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: R/Qi6Luiv( Name Printed: ocr,.,Li✓)0i Date: 1.q 0•0 ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6/98 12 • Environmental Checklist • D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS ese:.:: he. ts. should Ol ::be::OO for actions tr.v .::.:::::.:1 :.;:0:. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? eut (r Ca a 4,4466e6 0 ecd5 4 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,.fish, or marine life? • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? iu Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? IV ry Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 11 ! Draft February 14,2000 -- / DRAFT CAPITAL FACILTIES ELEMENT Vt14°C 2001 to 2006 GOAL 1. Develop and implement the capital facilities plan for the City of Renton. Draft February 14,2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS CAPITAL USE FACILITIES Growth management act 2 Growth projections 3 Capital facilities plan policies 4 Capital facilities plan summary 5 City budget projections 6 Transportation capital facilities plan 9 Water capital facilities plan 16 Wastewater capital facilities plan 21 Surface water utility capital facilities plan 26 Park,recreation and open space 30 Public safety capital facilities plan 42 Fire capital facilities plan 44 Economic Development/Administration 47 Draft February 14, 2000 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,Annual Capital Improvements Plan, . For detailed information and explanations concerning growth projections, land use determinations, existing facilities,level of service, etc.,the reader must consult these documents. The Capital Facilities Plan incorporates by reference the information and analyses presented in these other documents and the annual updates to these plans concerning existing facilities and level of service standards. Based on these other documents, the Capital Facilities Plan establishes policies for determining which public facilities should be built and how they should be paid for,and presents a six-year plan for the use of public funds toward building and funding the needed capital facilities. The process for arriving at the six year plan involved identifying existing facilities and level of service standards and then applying the projected growth in residential population and employment to identify the needed capital facilities. The timing of the facilities was established through a combination of the requirements of the city's concurrency policy and the length of time it takes to implement the needed facility. Type and Providers of Capital Facilities For the purposes of complying with the requirements of the GMA,the Capital Facilities Plan proposes a six-year plan for the following capital facilities and providers: transportation City of Renton domestic water City of Renton sanitary sewer City of Renton surface water City of Renton parks facilities City of Renton fire City of Renton police City of Renton economic development City of Renton Draft February 14,2000 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)) 2. Draft February 14, 2000 GROWTH PROJECTIONS According to the growth projections which form the basis of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,the City of Renton will experience an increase of 1,671 single family households, 6,324 multi-family households, and 27,267 jobs over the twenty year interval from 1990 to 2010. For the purpose of developing a six year capital facilities plan for the period from 2001 through 2006, an estimate had to be made as to the amount of the projected 20-year growth that occurred during the initial six year Capital Facilities Element planning cycle. After reviewing the projections and the underlying assumptions, it was determined that for planning purposes,the most prudent course was to maintain the original twenty year(1990 to 2010)employment and household forecasts and to assume a uniform allocation of the remaining projected growth over the 20-year period,rather than trying to predict year by year economic cycles or revising the original forecast. During the first six year capital facilities planning period, 1995 to 2000,the City of Renton achieved growth of xxxx single family households,xxxx multi-family households, and xxxx jobs. This record compares with the projected growth for the first phase of the planning period of 480 single family households, 1,897 multi-family households and 8,180 jobs.The City's population in April 1, 2000 was 48,270 only 186 households short of the 48,456 projected at the beginning of the planning cycle. (note to revieweers: numbers for households and jobs 1995-2000 will be provided early in 2001 to allow counting of the 2000 data through December) For the purposes of the second phase of the planning cycle,2001 to 2006 six year Capital Facilities Plan,Renton will plan for an increase of 359 single family households, 2,942 multi- family households, and 8,180 jobs. The city's population in the year 2006 is anticipated to be 53,837. To be sure, growth will not occur precisely as projected over the next six-year or even the 20-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 1997 and 2000 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,in some areas and lower in others the level of service standards were being provided. Subsequent reviews may result in revisions to the growth projections and the number and timing of capital facilities if the actual growth continues to exceed the forecast growth.,A major review of the City's Comprehensive Plan is scheduled to occur in 2002. 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. 3 Draft February 14, 2000 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN POLICIES Policy CFP-1. The Capital Facilities Plan should be updated on a regular basis as part of the city's budget process, and such update may include adjustments to growth projections for the ensuing six years,to level of service standards, to the list of needed facilities, or to anticipated funding sources. Policy CFP-2. Level of service standards should be established at the current or at a greater level of service for existing facilities within the City of Renton. 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 should occur due to growth, consistent with Policy CFP-3. Policy CFP-5. Funding for new, improved or expanded public facilities or services should come from a mix of sources in order to distribute the cost of such facilities or services according to use, need, and adopted goals and policies. Policy CFP-6. Evaluate levying impact fees on development for municipal services and/or school district services upon the request of the district if a compelling need is established through means such as presentation of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan and demonstration that such facilities are needed to accommodate projected growth.. (See the Public Facilities and Annexation Sections of the Land Use Element, the Utilities Element and the Transportation Elements for policies related to this Capital Facilities Plan.) 4 Draft February 14,2000 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SUMMARY 2001 to 2006 Table 5-1 below summarizes the City of Renton's Capital Facilities Plan for the period 2001 to 2006 as required by the Growth Management Act. Discussion of each of the components summarized below is contained in Chapters 6 through 13 of the Plan. Important Note: Except for the transportation facilities,the capital facilities contained in this Plan are only those projects necessitated by the growth projected to occur between 2001 and 2006 consistent with the city's concurrency policy. Capital facilities required for reasons other than projected growth will be needed during this same period, and those facilities will be presented as part of the city's normal capital budgeting process. Table 5-1 Capital Facilities Plan Summary 2001 -2006 Capital Projects: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Transportation Projects 18,978,000 10,866,117 17,593,250 47,347,100 45,785,831 21,104,300 Water Projects 510,000 510,000 610,000 3,550,000 Wastewater Projects 200,000 Surface Water Projects 1,800 1,035,00 885,000 960,000 350,000 Golf Course 120,000 40,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 Parks Projects 100,00 1,150,000 500,000 1,100,000 8,000,000 Fire/Public Safety 2,150,000 750,000 1,900,000 300,000 300,000 Projects Administration/Economic 7,116,000 6,866,000 3,466,000 50,000 50,000 Development Total 19,177,000 24,005,000 37,692,000 46,989,000 28,736,000 All Fund Sources: General Fund 305,000 Oper,Rev/Bonds Funds 800,000 Licenses and Fees 968,000 Other Taxes 750,000 Grants 3,212,000 Loans Not funded 11,788,000 Total 17,823,000 5 CITY BUDGET PROJECTIONS 2001-2006 Revenue Projections for General Governmental Funds Background: The General Governmental Funds are the resources that can be used for any purpose the City identifies as necessary within the confines of the State Constitution. The resources fall into the following categories: property, sales, and utility taxes,user fees, intergovernmental revenues,fines,and miscellaneous things like investment interest. The first three type of taxes generate over 50 percent of the total revenue used to pay for police, fire,parks, library and public works, and general governmental services. Overall these revenues illustrate the economic health of the City. Since 1990 the region has experienced a slower rate of growth in economic conditions than was experienced in the late 1980's. However, cost of services has experienced a continued increase beyond inflation. This has been primarily due to health,property and liability costs,and because government is labor intensive. These two events--lower revenue increases and continued higher than inflation cost increases combined to require the City to find ways to reduce costs. Over the past three years, Renton has had to eliminate some significant services in order to balance its budget. THIS SECTION TO BE REVISED BY FINANCE Projections: Projecting revenues for the next six years is,at best, a difficult proposition. Renton is poised to take advantage of any growth that may occur in the region. It has vacant land and very affordable office space. • Property taxes: The State of Washington has a property tax lid. It states that cities cannot increase property tax levy more than six percent of the city's highest levy of the last three years. In addition, each city has an overall lid on its regular(non voted)tax levy of not more than$3.60 per$1,0000. In 1994,Renton's regular property tax levy is$3.43 with an additional 5 cents for Fire Pension payments. This combined rate of$3.48 is a more significant constraint on property tax receipts. The city's assessed value actually decreased in 1994 because of Boeing reductions that left buildings vacant. Estimates for suggest that Renton's assessed value will grow by percent.. •Sales taxes: The foundation of the State of Washington's tax structure is based upon the elastic growth of retail sales. When the economy is healthy,revenues are up; during recessions, government must respond immediately because one of its prime resources show significant decreases. In addition, cities must compete with one another for retail sales generators. The base projections estimate a growth in the base collections of sales tax. This may be optimistic. Over the past two years the City of Renton has benefited significantly from sales tax receipts generated on the public projects of the I-405 construction and the Metro treatment facility. The City's sales taxes from general retail sales has actually decreased due to the closure of major retail areas known as Renton Center and Renton Village. The construction from those large projects will be replaced with other projects--Renton Village, possible construction of a Home Base, and other smaller areas. Car sales also make up a significant portion of the City's sales tax,and while unit sales are expected to decrease,the price--and therefore the dollar value--is expected to increase. Further, as Renton continues to establish itself as a destination to purchase all cars,overall unit sales may actually hold. In addition to the base,new revenues identified from known resources have been included. • Utility taxes: UPDATE • Business License Fees: UPDATE Business license fees in Renton are primarily dedicated to transportation needs. Less than 15 percent is used for general governmental purposes. The fee is a flat amount based upon the number of full time employees. • Intergovernmental Revenues: Each city receives monies from the state from sources such as gas tax,motor vehicle excise taxes,liquor taxes, and equalization amounts based upon overall sales tax revenues generated. These revenues have, overall, slowed in growth rates. There are specific reasons: Gas taxes are decreasing because people are purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles; motor vehicle excise taxes are decreasing because there will be a new allocation process due to county health needs (there will be an offsetting expenditure also); and liquor taxes are slowing because demographics are changing, and people are drinking less hard liquor and more wine and beer. These estimates are generated by the State's Office of Financial Management and the Municipal Research Council. Further,they are allocated on the basis of total residential population. These numbers do not include significant amounts of revenue due to population growth because these numbers lag by one year. In other words,the current allocation is based upon residential projections made in the spring of the previous year. • Building permit revenue: UPDATE • Miscellaneous revenue: UPDATE Park fees will grow marginally over the next few years mainly due to fee increases. The facilities are near capacity.. Fines have been holding steady and there is little opportunity for increased revenues. Expenditure Projections for General Governmental Funds Also,the City has embarked on a proactive approach to address benefit costs. As did every other entity, during the 1980's the City experienced significant increases in health benefit premium costs. These ranged from a high of 25 percent to a mild 5 percent overall increase expected for the next five years. This cost is the most uncertain in that the Washington State Health Act will impact the City's costs. However, until the Health Commission makes final rules and regulations, the City has no idea what the impacts will be on its costs. There has been a positive impact on costs from the attention that has been focused upon health costs. Costs are not expected to increase in the next six years the way they did over the past five years. The other costs include supplies and other services and charges. Estimates for these costs include a general increase of 3 percent annually for inflation. These numbers will be refined during the budget process as more true costs are identified. For example,utilities comprise almost$500,000 to various budgets. These tend to increase more than inflation, and in fact,have increased by more than 5 percent annually. Also many contracts with interlocal agencies have in the past increased by more than 3 percent. Some of these are driven by service level, such as calls for police and fire aid. Others are with federal, state and county agencies that establish rates based upon their costs. The City's approach has been to cover the costs by reducing in other areas. The City will continue to balance the budget within those constraints. At this time there are no costs built in for added facilities. As new capital facilities are built,the maintenance service level must decrease or additional costs must be added to sustain the same maintenance level of service. These decisions will be made on an annual basis within the budget process. The Table on the following page shows both the historical general government budget and that projected for the period from 2001-2006. 7 TABLE 6 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2001-2006 Inventory of Existing Facilities Figures 7-1 and 7-2 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 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. Figure 7-1 Existing StreetlHighway System (1998) b ' 4Y • Legend —~°r FF City Limit• ' . Transportation ,_. r, I FNTo Renton Plan. :` t`JW ill e Planning Area f; `, I castle . '7/ s„,z4p,„:174..A151 I itt II I / ,.a µc. e u � .. f®� ", f • Not To Scale r�.1 t� � e k, ram® e . '1. oi-:,-..: ., o ilb gr■1■11►. " 4 ;,...-..gt..: :tos;:i:litwasii ..: ,..,..!....!:::..,:.:;„:....:., ,..,. ....., .- --.., ,,,,t„-,,,.. '' I t 1 )jJfl4Jjf E___I .:..:.,....;,:, l_ri,„ t tom, �k'> 900 I 11,11 fi REEN'imuiteilA .c.,,,Nft.:1;,?::.'i!.!i:i,:.-'::':i.'1:;','-6A-:`` i alkl.'2dallig.2.12:.:. . mar ' i.:1 iiii --Itri _ ...,nr,......... ZIP=Pk,:k ‘:,14§;1:.3. - ,k Niiiiihrt, 1101.EAritit _ P \� 1 Li:. ,, M: --_ :' /. RERa :_; ._-<::::.: :.:,� :: .:.:: ::..:.. .:*' J °' �—ittk �C71r. pp gggqpppp / _ .y i . '11011114 - t'��"""rb � r �� ,�i '=azeiv::":`."'_2 d:_';a;;,:: +c:4�)i: `y:'Y • 1 k:11. 1 - ' �,G9 i ii i.:.7....ii-,,,,,.-;1,,...:,,:,:...k;-.,„!:-..,:_:...:'::!E..;:s.._:,:..:-,..Ers.....::.::::'..L.i...:..!.i.i:,::;...i:i:.:...:.i:.',:i4: i...,,I,i,._051.,!:;:!,;.:!!:j.L.71:7,:m;.:::7i::.;;..ii:÷6.:31°;_itaqr1P-EM:11:15,51,:'' 1* . :. ui .. :l.. ... .. '..':"i...:,iaa7.'.'... wilm..1:, III A.'''''''''.74.,7.,: c,:i .. 1 r �.V f : . _ ---1.1...-. --'. -gat .'i 1:::.::::;!i" :..'.: ' ..,wil .17,in %.,,!.-41::„,i,i..,0....im„,,,.,,,, ..,„,mun..,..? r___ itptl, li..!„..::!::::.;::::.,..,,...::.::".:,,_..2 . ‘\\ f... ",..1. ,:;,.ii, 5 4,•-„;,, mi-ii---xiiiinit -1. a._ --a 4 : A ,..s, !E---;-;-!:: r '-_:-.'-'''':,-*** - 1g M5•P:,;7i;'s ,e raw = �_ rIIIIIVIIJII rt ; _ :` .... ji =;y_1i,i raw%=°l ■� :' u,. k.,:10'1,.is ��' ��- , �17I..• h.Wiri4M.r. . ti .1 '-- i 44:.44,,,p if ,5„.i kit.'41 lail 1 II a, _ , • 92nd St 3 vim, _ I d ` 4 , /lilt t -- ,St,.. (--- I , l 1 f . Lit 1 , - _ : _ „ i ....„ • .. .., l C) Traffic Flow Map tlint•il— a 6.000 4:Co • a000 N . OR A r ®• ,to©Q ®t;:.-® ST .,000 N,on,Sr Y © © O 1i.= .: . . ;41Mirorl 0 ♦ ON aM St A (111.4)+ /Mil 0 eTN 73 4 PO A , . : ... ... F ; 4 Y •=k4:04•MII 1,311911 €NM/ Aa9C11T Mr a 1 0 00NE 4 ilr NEATEN Ai 1 . 1AProlf Aeoo -� • l„,t .00.% . 0 . ]E, ©' '.-7° r.� �A�©.A� 0 ©. lei CITY OF RENTON 2000 A 9 -or: TRAFFIC FLOW MAP DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDLNG/PUBUC WORKS 1, TRANSPORTATION NS SYSTEMS DIVISION ' 9 i ,.,� QQ1 '� . ° .0. EXAMPLE 10. SCALE: 1._ 100,000 VEHICLES ,=:., h ir tzlow kl‘t 1 0 o •IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES BIDIRECTIONAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC i NOTE: INTERSTATE 405 AND STATE ROUTE 167 i •• 'fZ.,9 (SOUTH OF 1-405)ARE SHOWN AT HALF SCALE. Y I-405 1-405 1:1 Y . 6161 C . • ,eM _ @ ' 0..,0‘10,t,,I,I .,2 0,c",o,... 'o. st , ''� "r..4„1., 00,...... () Ct./ . y / 1 4 0 © © S i,ST ST A�./�w�� "Y NICK V. �sA'] Q+rom sT CITY OF RENTON soirbi • ;;, 1 illz .gaz. . 4 0 @ 1011 ,. 0 'J 0 1 N DQMTICES!S Of PUBLIC WOMB • 1 , soon-TRAFFIC PLOW MAP 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 King County 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 standards is used to evaluate Renton city-wide 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 1990 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 1990 and 2010) The 1990 LOS index is the basis for the 2010 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2010. 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 2010 standard. City-wide Level of Service Index(Year 1990): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 18 miles 21 miles 10 49 (Z City-wide Level of Service Standard(Year 2010): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard 14 miles * 21 miles 14 49 The City of Renton LOS standards are used to evaluate city-wide 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 2010 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 2010. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan,2001-2006 The transportation 6-year facilities plan is based on achieving the desired level of service by the year 2010 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 6-year plan. The first step in developing the 6-year funding plan was to establish a 20-year plan which 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)in 1994 dollars. The transit costs include only the local match for the local feeder system and intermodal stations. Having established a 20-year funding level of$134 million, an annual funding level of$6.7 million was established. With this funding level,it is reasonably certain that each year the existing level of service will improve and the desired level of service will be achieved by 2010 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 2001-2006 TIP. It was assumed that gas tax and vehicle tax revenues would continue at the current level of$0.67 million per year. Additionally, it was assumed that grant funding would be maintained at the current level which is$3.57 million per year. . Business license fees of $1.89 million per year were based on the current level of$1.80 million per year adjusted to $1.40 million per year to reflect devaluation due to inflation at 4%per year,then adjusted upward to account for employment growth forecasts. The result is a requirement of$0.57 million from mitigation fees. Based on forecasts of total new vehicle trips from development, a mitigation fee of$75 per trip was established. Besides a mitigation fee payment as their fair share contribution toward mitigating cumulative impacts, developers will be required to implement site specific improvements to ensure that on- site and adjacent facility impacts are mitigated. l3 Table 7-1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2001-2006 SIX YEAR TIP . Total Project Costs - - Previous ��Period Total TIP Project MN Costs 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Cost 1 Street Overlay Program 1.218.437 410,000 410,000 410,000 410.000 410,000 410,000 2,460,000 3,678,437 2 Oakesdale Ave.SW Phase 1 B 625,000 13.000 13,000 638,000 3 Oakesdale Ave.SW Phase 2 941,550 1,558,450 1,558.450 2,500,000 4 I-405INE 44th Interchange 2,355,270 2,830,000 8,400,000 30,500,000 24,400,000 68,130,000 68,485,270 5 Transit Program 383,715 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.000 600,000 983,715 6 North-South Transit Corridor 15,000 15,000 15,000 30,000 7 Walkway Program 1,368,838 170,000 170,000 170,000 170.000 170,000 170,000 1,020,000 2,388,838 I Downtown Transit Access 1,203,757 465.698 465,696 1,669,453 • Transit Priority Signal System 572,000 387.104 387,104 959.104 _10 SR167ISW 27th Stl Strander Blvd. 109,894 805.800 950,000 7.945.900 13,703,400 15,850,800 7,582,000 46,637.900 46,747,794 11 Grady Way/SR 167 50,000 80.000 470,000 2,100,000 2,150,000 4,800,000 4,850,000 12 SR769 HOV-140f11 to SR900 150,000 372,800 1.100,000 1,877,200 3,150,000 3,300,000 13 Duvall Ave NE 20,000 80,000 250,000 2,080.000 1,320,000 3,730,000 3,750,000 14 Renton Urban Shuttle(RUSH) 378,239 172,000 172,000 172,000 172.000 172,000 172,000 1,032,000 1,410,239 15 Arterial NOV Program 215,355 18,000 140.000 15.000 441,000 300,000 15,000 929,000 1,144,355 16 Trans-Valley&Soos Creek Corr. 20,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 • 80,000 100,000 17 Bridge Inspection&Repair 101,202 120,000 30,000 30,000' 30,000 701,000 30.000 941,000 1,042,202 is TDM Program 145,856 63,250 83,250 55,000 55.000 55,000 55.000 346,500 492.158 _is Loop Replacement Program 24.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20.000 120,000 144,000 20 Sign Replacsmsnt Program 20,776 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15000 15,000 90,000 110,778 21 Ught Pole Prog. 44,172 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 134,172 22 SurwtlAnacodas Ave NE 291,800 37,500 37,500 329,300 2s Lake Wash.By-Park to Coulon Pk 750,000 750,000 750,000 _24 S.2nd Street Safely Project 216,375 42,500 42.500 258,875 25 Arterial Circulation Program 507,421 250,000 150,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 1.757,421 26 Project DevebpmentlPredesign 276,620 175,000 175,000 200,000 200.000 200.000 200,000 1.150,000 1,426,620 27 WSDOT Coordination Program 29,928 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 89,928 as 1-405 HOV Direct Access 35,000 20,000 20,000 55.000 29 City Gateways 76,376 69,300 55,000 55,000 55,000 234,300 310,676 30 Traffic Safety Program 200,114 40,000 40.000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 240,000 .440,114 31 Traffic Efficiency Program 513,373 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000_ 30,000 30;000 180,000 693,373 32 Arterial Rehab.Prog. 5,646 150,000 240,000 83,471 55,000 46,335 240,000 814,806 820.452 33 East Valley Rd&SW 43rd Rehab 1.111.100 58,900 58,900 1.170,000 34 Trans Concurrency. 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 70,000 • 35 Missing Links Program 30,700 30,000 30,000 30.000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 210,700 36 ParkSunsetCorridor 198,000 72,000 528,000 798,000 798,000 37 RR Crossing Safety Prog. 126,577 300,000 10,000 10,000 320,000 448,577 3a Interagency Signal Coord. 74,572 74,572 36 Environmental Monitoring 12,855 38,817 30,000 36,529 30,000 36,665 30,000 202,011 214,866 40 Bicycle Route 0ay.Program 47,600 100,000 110,000 18,000 18,000 80,000 80,000 408,000 453,600 41 RalniorAvSR 167 to S 2nd St 5,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 42 NE3rd/NE 4th Corridor 10,000 224,000 290,000 1,986,000 2,500,000 2,510,000 43 CBD Bike&Ped.Confections 25,000 364,000 946,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 1,350,000 1,375,000 44 Lied Av-SW 16th-SW 43rd 60,000 1,914,000 826,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 45 SW 7th StiLlnd Ave SW 32,000 218,000 2513,000 250.000 p Benson Rd S IS 31st St 10,000 10,000 130,000 140,000 150,600 47 Valley Connections to West 50,000 110,000 1,100,000 1,210,000 1.260,000 45 Oakesdale Ave SW Extension 99,569 60,431 2,753,000 9,399,000 12,212,431 12,312,000 Total Sources 13,728,486 10,366,117 17,595,250 47,347,100 45,785,831 21,104,800 18,978,000 161,677,098 175,405,586 Tor,a.uo,n m, p • • I • Table 7-2 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2001 -2006 SIX YEAR TIP SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES Period ITEM Period Total 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 EXPENSES: Project Development 3,161,931 1,068,250 383,250 315,000 505,431 445,000 445,000 Precon Eng/Admin 15,743,317 4,162,317 5,454,500 2,919,400 1,231,100 1,755,500 220,500 R-O-W(includes Admin) 3,829,500 71,500 181,000 1,452,000 851,000 .1,273,000 1,000 Construction Contract Fee 125,299,488 4,703,888 10,201,400 38,730,700 39,201,500 15,775,000 16,687,000 Construction Eng/Admin 11,555,862 408,162 998,100 3,503,000 3,719,800 1,579,300 1,347,500 Other 2,087,000 452,000 377,000 427,000 277,000 277,000 277,000 Sub-TOTAL EXPENSES 161,677,098 10,866,117 17,595,250 47,347,100 45,785,831 21,104,800 18,978,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS: 1/2 Cent Gas Tax 2,121,000 353,500 353,500 353,500 353,500 353,500 353,500 Business License Fee 12,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Vehicle License Fee 2,100,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Grants In-Hand 2,503,241 2,059,241 444,000 Mitigation In-Hand 3,721,627 1,091,627 780,000 1,350,000 500,000 L.I.D.'s Formed Other In-Hand 1,544,280 942,080 140,000 342,200 40,000 40,000 40,000 Grants Proposed 9,867,050 551,250 2,233,250 4,045,750 1,500,000 1,036,800 500,000 Mitigation Proposed 3,099,000 1,489,333 1,320,667 289,000 L.I.D.'s Proposed Other Proposed 2,279,356 773,333 866,667 639,356 Undetermined 122,441,544 1,255,753 9,107,166 37,977,294 41,042,331 17,324,500 15,734,500 TOTAL SOURCES 161,677,098 10,866,117 17,595,250 47,347,100 45,785,831 21,104,800 18,978,000 9w00_0(,900/00 07/11/2000 1.110 WATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2001-2006 Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's water system provides service to an area of approximately 16 square miles and more than 12,000 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 approximately 225 miles of water main in service. In addition,the City maintains one standby well and five metered connections with the City of Seattle(Cedar River and Bow Lake supply pipelines) for emergency back- up supply. Renton supplies water on a wholesale basis to Lakeridge Bryn-Mawr Water District. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Water Utility is defined by the ability to provide an adequate amount of high quality water to all parts of the distribution system at adequate pressure during peak demand or fire. This ability is determined by the physical condition of the system and the capacity of supply, storage,treatment, pumping and distribution systems. Level of service standards for the water system vary according to the component of the overall system and are determined by the requirements established by local, state,and federal regulations. Water supply is regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology(water rights), and the Washington State Department of Health(quantity guidelines),water quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(Safe Drinking Water Act) and the Washington State Department of Health (primacy over Safe Drinking Water Act), system design and construction requirements are regulated by the Washington State Department of Health. The Water Utility maintains a hydraulic model of the water system. The model incorporates the pipe size and location,booster pumps, and storage to determine the flow and pressure available in each segment of the distribution system. The Utility can evaluate the impact of a specific development on the system using the model. The Water Utility reviews each development in terms of flow,pressure and water supply required. The Water Utility's goal is to provide an adequate supply of potable water under the "worst case" scenario. This scenario considers the following conditions: failure of the largest source of supply, failure of the largest mechanical component,power failure to a single power grid, and/or a reservoir out of service. Under this scenario,the Water Utility strives to meet the following primary requirements: Pressure: Maintain a minimum of 30 pounds per square inch(psi) at the meter during normal demand conditions and a minimum of 20 psi during an emergency. Maximum allowable pressure at the meter during normal demand is 130 psi and a maximum of 150 psi during an emergency Velocity: Under normal demand conditions,the velocity in a transmission main is less than 4 feet per second(fps) and less than 8 fps during an emergency. Supply: The water supply must meet the maximum day demand and replenish storage within 72 hours with the largest source of supply out of service. NAMUR I Ii a 1 I I `�I BELLEVUE i-�- [; 1 `�1 � 400 .>�y -- tr,.:s =«:x 1 - I !SSA :K y'js ' ;ski:. ;. _T ��� ;_, c.^z>a S.�,om �. v Figure 2-2 xX''y �S .{' I /$ S';. cliff eOREN \ F t 'fir �•�a�.S:;l:�.;�:x,:_. I 1 ; \pGp� / i I = N .•• • - s!o?; .a lias.' , �' . .:: 2—wo s,( �`�� \\\ 1/ EXISTING WATER �s A � w ._ . ;`� FACILITIES �. ;«x `fig, n�. �^x:'.; j I L .74<lxvoil. f \___ . .4 1,4 1 t J\ M I 1 :1711 k:\ 1 ‘1''' ,` t'` i' - 6Er.;ETFPT FQ 1 . \, \ - I I I L �. . .—'E7Ai / \ I ue ,:rNLEER r --i! 1 i , r ; Service Areo I� \Q r i _ — ,ti '� '--i C -J__� L I • Wells kUKINP../4 . ( \� s - J I � LIXE NACDDNALD ■ Booster Station o Reservoirs K II\ /� 4 Intertie 1 0' 4 �_ J - - City Limits I I 17l —J--e `' 4. 1 — '� i z Lr Po _•——•——_ Urban Growth Boundary I 1 s d 1 '+ \\ • Sphere of Influence i I �¢ \1 o J 0 5000 10000 ` /1111( �� � Sf pfT 7-Ihre DLSIRL a \2 I+ )1.-fili: I a"'lgrsxr la 4: \ 1:60,000 J 4 I FD I•K 6:r. 40 SPRh�' X£ \ C IP J �e` \\ Note: For graphic presentation only. -- ( 3 I Facilities ore not to scale. 1 Vd l R f -7 \Ai-I' t �'• 2 ^,� S .'.'rvFJ='SNAD)'LAX£ 0" LONG RANGE PLANNING r i� ( <« i SPHERE/OF INFLUENCE +a O.Dennison < c::, '3..::,.:v,:r.r. — R.MacOnie, D.Visneski KENT * v:PAATIIER LAKE ;,5:" "r�i>'E: ., ��� v21 February1994 P 2 ILL SOURCE: RI-12 ENGINEERING, 1994 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. 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,2001-2006 THE PARAGRAPH NEEDS REVISION by Water Utility Based on the projected growth in population and employment by the year 2006,the existing supply of water will meet the level of service standard. As Table 8-1 indicates,with the addition of Wells 11 and 17,the net capacity of the system is 16.01 million gallons per day,which is adequate to serve a population of 53,440. With the projected population of Renton to be 53,837 in 2006, the existing supply is adequate to serve the anticipated growth. Meeting the 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. REVISE 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. Table 8-1 City of Renton Existing Supply Capacity • Current Active Supply. , 24.91 MGD Less Largest Source' (5.04 MGD) Remaining Active Supply 19.87 MGD Less Fire Flow Storage 2 (1.5 MGD) Less Standby Storage 3 (2.36 MGD) Net Supply Capacity 16.01 MGD* •Using WDOH guidelines 16.01 MGD could serve about 53,440 people 'WDOH guidelines require that supply planning assume the City's largest single source(Well 8)is not available. I 2WDOH guidelines require a system replace water used for fire fighting in a single day. For Renton, a fire flow requirement of 5,000 gallons per minute for 5 hours was assumed. 3WDOH guidelines require that standby storage of 200 gallons per Equivalent Residential Unit(ERU)be replenished in 48 hours. 1G Table 8-2 Water Capital Facilities 2001-2006-- Water Projects Through 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2001 New Reservoirs and Pump 200,000 3,550,000 3,750,0 Stations Water Supply Development 10,000 10,000 30,0 10,000 Emergency Power Supply to 500,000 500,000 400,000 1,400,0 Wells and Pump Stations Total 510,000 510,000 610,000 3,550,000 5,180,0 Sources of Funds: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Oper Rev/Bonds 1,165,000 1,605,000 1,205,000 1,205,000 5,180,0 Licenses and Fees Other Taxes Grants Loans Not Funded Total 1,165,000 1,605,000 1,205,000 1,205,000 5,180,0 ZU WASTEWATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2001-2006 Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's sanitary sewer system consists of about 171 miles of gravity sewers, 19 lift stations with associated force mains,and approximately 3,800 manholes. Wastewater is discharged to regional facilities at 67 locations within the service area. The location 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 11,800 customers which includes approximately ninety-four percent of the city's population and eighty percent of the city's land area. The remaining six-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. With the exception of the West Renton Subbasin where sections of sewer lines experience problems during peak wet weather events,the capacity of the existing facilities are adequate to handle the current demand. In addition to the current capacity restraints within the West Renton Subbasin,the Black River Basin will need additional improvements as further development occurs within the basin. 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 Wastewater Treatment Division,in a safe and efficient manner. This ability is determined by the physical condition of Renton's system and the capacity available in the system. It is the Renton Wastewater Utility's responsibility to maintain the system in a safe condition and monitor the standards for new construction. The Wastewater Utility is also responsible for ensuring that capacity exists in the system prior to new connections or that the capacity is created as part of the new development. The level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is developed through coordination with and subject to the policies, design criteria,and standards used for planning and operating a sanitary sewer system as established by the laws and policies of several agencies. Those agencies,in order by authority, are the Department of Ecology(Criteria for Sewage Works Design),King County Wastewater Treatment Division, and the City of Renton. The Wastewater Utility maintains a model of the sewer system. The model uses the size, type, and slope of the pipes to determine the capacity of the each component 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 to provide a standard statement on the capacity available in Renton's sewer system. Renton's Wastewater Utility reviews available capacity on a project by project level and plans for long range capacity based upon the ultimate development of the adopted land use. 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. 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 Inflow and Infiltration 1100 gallons per acre per day 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. 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,2001-2006 Based on the forecasted growth in population and employment, daily wastewater flows are predicted to increase by as much as 3.07 million gallons per day(mgd.)during the period from 2001 through 2006. The majority of the new flows will occur within basins where we have already constructed new interceptors in anticipation of the new development. Two areas where we will see needs to make future improvements to accommodate additional flows will be in our Black River Basin and our West Renton Subbasin. West Renton will not see significant new development within the subbasin,but limiting existing capacity will place this basin in need of improvements in the near future. The Black River Basin is an area that is anticipated to see a significant amount of new development and as such will need additional capacity. In both cases this capacity need is not anticipated within the current 6-year time frame of this plan, and as such, our project list does not include any improvements for these two areas. 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, another 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; l3 } RS SOREN 1 ISLAND 1 3,14WA .,. NEWCAS 1 .�h`k � Nr 19 s<MA 51 `P' , J W. / '* ---, SANITARY SEWER , � jr'A.ry � S' ` --- TRUNK LINES Luce WABF@SQrO.N Edam. h W Y ,.` '1,,,,,, XIi,.A4 ( 4S.144 c74��u±1 .-r STONE 6q8 rum '"t6A d -'T a gyp.1 ,. 5's.ai'�' /lv 111111 I f Y,^'N'9'�- . j{);•1404 k� t'4�"u�^3%lii 7. S 4 . iu'iNu7+l��iY 6V 0 43"k A SEA E 1, ' w 4 � F r �y� � M c� j' ``.� ' }� a Vac r�.«-�}41a. i}`?�iy Mg?? G AllL-_- !"' (l G 4k {G{r iA`�b' p t IfJ �� 9 ,, I q P 10-#1' i.�\1,„,i, d ,u 44skFe+r,4° 4 'e,A •qL . I to ., e tv, , vIt e •,#3 i "t , .,w"Wf,*q °4 �y- X r$ ci�{ ro rr� h� 'r �'4 ' "� `^� sK+ �k�<ik r,�i'rr ,,�'� 04 ' �Zn �'C� fit R a�4 4 404 01* rgt ' Lift Stations 40'. 4.Pc'311 r 3, •c k' k . "i§�'' ,ta q,a pre rt+ % 0 " E a 1 i e' a+ • 0,a ,,, a sc , ; a�4 �r ! - : o ::ercePtors ,„*,1 w „ w .' >t , 2B x dk ";rt tee:, "c re.,.'v rys`it$I n 'v y tt';w•qy,;` ` ,,, m �4 a" udi'7 rn e t y a iT+P id ' .' 'v et f `'r'�A 1.4. d;'k'�"�;}.0 ct� /"• ; /•":144'1:4 dO/h C�r'�g�,. .� a k d;� ry, G '. ,n k mil ,�g t % its r� '#'�,4, +T 'Ik 5"::,:1}"-'i" \ \W/ try int.'"!' r '.4 -� �/11,'"4�`t`�i"}�fiu^.,}}�'"y.,.t' "P-4 44.1 ':ri: IIIIVi)i f^et+4 .t 5 std s $7 p 'I Y }/ „`Fr N /} 1 1'�y^ :- T! 4�, .*;}+'('4.•,' 1 C`1 l �}4.X-'# 1*S Y C}{ A 1 ` lr't 4 l--- S •'Y•'-".,( ,,,,,i '1 aa<,\ t Ad' YY 3 a 1 S{ j y 1 L .0 A'}\�� ' ,�• - V -f ' -, / : 4 s 7 i ,+�� Metro's East Division � . .�, P, ` 2 Reclamation Plant ' -It s�, t aY _ , T r r It I F{2 City Limits eye"' na - • e r 1� �,.- p �, s c ▪ ,t ,, -' 3Y A •I < u --'-'--'-'- Urban Growth Boundary p" xh Y hy9 - S a taR� t• T .),..:),,,-0 '—mil � � 3, a " [7 or ",,,,,,v t,,A,`s s b3-1 #q a. �t,r �.;k ran so.„,„, i��,�t t ,�+ / r.'I , m ,�•ar� - 'ry,rs �i r i -u,e �. ,,... �'e� ° i� t a� `` . urn f n >Vet 1 �S t„ e �1�".at.-�.�Tom. Walt 1 i. 11i/ »a 4' °, f' f� ''N:d .Je° °,4;+te'U"'B.a'1,E k' ' MSy�, _ ...P '� �� Tuh�a 4^ � 1 ` + 14�A• `� i t l t 4 I' '(Y.y ,aM1"-s" l i ,1^`� !its °4} . . 1J, ' k! J i St ander 4 t� ! �' U tL $t -•_j• ® �� � ` ? N z��t 1 '. -._.i4> City of Renton Sanitary Sewer ;�' , ,5�k �t M ., s j°� r _•z.bi Service Area �N ,{., "� $f' I Bate 51 $ r "4. •t�.s. • _ 400 ,.,7""4u (. 'Z7 kr i(tx^"• yN, S J •Pelraltekr Rd I ly.•.7 % 11, dY Z 4.( v?dx1i ti W r 1i%ryt, k et h 7 S 1791 (Ii 1 4.•, 0 6000 12000 A ' bt '$ � ti� il C/ qri f� i , bl SPRING , Nr t: 1 " k 29,11•4 Note: For graphic presentation only .1 L.j Facilities are not to scale. s g 7081 St SE loam St ,! LAI(SYOI NOe � Gti� O� LONG RANGE PLANNING --- + ♦ O.Dennison r �� sj R.Mac ly , 0 Visneski1 D.Ellis It'N.fO$ 8 February 2001 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. Table 9-1 below lists the projects needed along with the sources of funds for them for the period 2001-2006 based upon the six-year growth projections and the desired level of wastewater service. • Table 9-1 Wastewater Capital Facilities 2001-2006 Wastewater Projects 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Aberdeen Avenue NE Sewer 300,000 801 Avenue South Sewer 200,000 Central Plateau Interceptor 200,000 200,000 Sewer to Health Hazard Areas 600,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 Total 500,000 600,000 800,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Sources of Funds: Utility Fund 500,000 600,000 800,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Capital Fund Bonds Grants Private Total 500,000 600,000 800,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 25 SURFACE WATER UTILITY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2001-2006 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,which 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 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 Municipal Code and adopted standards. The Surface Water Utility owns,maintains and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated to the City for storm and surface water management purposes. The Utility currently owns, operates and maintains approximately 181 miles of storm pipe systems including associated catch basins and manholes. The Utility is responsible for maintaining 13 detention facilities and approximately 12 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. Level of Service Background The Surface Water Utility's policies, design criteria, and standards used for planning, engineering, operating and maintaining the storm and surface water systems are based upon requirements that originate from many sources. Together,these regulations define the acceptable level of service for surface water. The primary Federal, State and local agencies and regulations which affect the City of Renton's level of service standard for surface and storm water systems are listed below: 1. Federal Agencies/Regulations: • Environmental Protection Agency(EPA): i. Federal Clean Water Act ii. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit) iii. Pollutant Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) Requirements • Federal Emergency Management Act Standards i. National Flood Insurance Program • Endangered Species Act i. National Marine Fisheries Service/ US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Consultation and Biological Review Requirements. • Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE) i. Clean Water Act Nationwide/404 Individual Permit Requirements 2. State Agencies/Regulations: • Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDOE): i. Stormwater Discharge Permits (NPDES). iii. Water Quality Certification Permits iv. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Permit v. Shoreline Management Program(SMP) vi. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan • Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife(WSDFW) i. Hydraulic Project Approval Permits 3. Local Agencies/Regulations • Renton Municipal Code 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. 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 be 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. 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,2001-2006 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; �7 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 Natural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS)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 legislative appropriations approved for Surface Water Utility projects; 11. Other unidentified federal, state and local grant programs As is evident in Table 10-1 on the following page,the Surface Water Utility proposes to use revenue bonds as the primary source of funding. However, all or any combination of the financial sources could be used to fund the needed capital facilities,if available. Table 10-1 Surface Water Utility Capital Facilities 2001-2006 Surface Water Projects Through 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 Wetland Mitigation Bank 75,000 100,000 1,300,000 10,000 10,000 10,1 Storm System Improvement 1,077,500 600,000 450,000 400,000 825,000 225,1 Springbrook Creek Improvements , 75,000 675,000 75,000 450,000 100,000 200,1 Total 1,227,500 1,375,000 1,825,000 860,000 935,000 435,1 Sources of Funds: Oper Rev.Bonds 1,227,500 1,375,000 1,825,000 860,000 935,000 435,1 Licenses and Fees Other Taxes Grants Loans Not Funded Total 1,227,500 1,375,000 1,825,000 860,000 935,000 435,1 Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2001-2006 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 88.84 22.70 111.54 Community Parks 109.51 90.00 199.51 Regional Parks 55.33 0.00 55.33 Open Space Areas 642.46 236.00 878.46 Linear Parks &Trails 91.21 0.00 91.21 Special Use Parks &Facilities 192.60 0.00 192.60 TOTAL 1,179.95 348.70 1528.65 Tables 11-2 and 11-3 on the following pages list the individual park and open space areas which 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. Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Table 11-2 - Public Park and Open Space Areas in Renton Detailed Listing Park Acres Status Neighborhood Parks(17) Earlington Park 1.54 Developed Glencoe Park .42 Developed Heather Downs Park 4.30 Undeveloped Highlands Park 10.40 Developed Jones Park 1.18 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 Sunset Court 0.50 Developed Talbot Hill Reservoir 2.50 Developed Thomas Teasdale Park 10.00 Developed Tiffany Park 7.00 Developed Watershed Park 16.00 Undeveloped Windsor Hill Park 4.50 Developed TOTAL 88.84 Acres Community Parks (9) Cedar River Park 23.07 Developed Kennydale Beach 1.76 Developed Liberty Park 11.89 Developed Narco Property 15.00 Undeveloped Piazza&Gateway 0.8 Developed Riverview Park 11.50 Developed Ron Regis Park 45.00 Developed Tonkins Park 0.29 Developed Veterans Memorial Park 0_2 Part. Developed TOTAL 109.51 Acres Regional Parks (1) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 55.33 Developed TOTAL 55.33 Acres Open Space Areas(9) Black River Riparian Forest 90.00 Undeveloped Cedar River Natural Area 251.98 Undeveloped Cleveland Property 23.66 Undeveloped Lake Street 1.00 Undeveloped May Creek/McAskill 10.00 Undeveloped May Creek Greenway 29.82 Undeveloped Panther Creek Wetlands 73.00 Undeveloped Renton Wetlands 125.00 Undeveloped Springbrook Watershed 38.00 Undeveloped TOTAL 642.46 Acres 31 Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Linear Parks&Trails Burnett Linear Park 1.00 Developed Cedar River Trail 42.48 Developed Honey Creek Trail 35.73 Springbrook Trail 12.00 TOTAL 91.21 Acres Special Use Parks&Facilities(6) Boathouse 4,242.00 Developed Carco Theatre 11,095.00 s.f. 310 seats Highlands Neighborhood Center 11,906.00 s.f. Developed Maplewood Golf Course/Restaurant/Pro Shop 15,508.00 s.f. Developed North Highlands Neighborhood Center 4,432.00 s.f. Developed Renton Community Center 38,000.00 s.f. Developed Renton Senior Activity Center 22,151.00 s.f. Developed TOTAL 192.6 Acres CITY-WIDE TOTAL 1,179.95 Acres a2- Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT TABLE 11-3 Public park and open space areas in Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas (PAAs) Detailed Listing Maplewood Community Park Site 40.0 Acres Undeveloped Petrovitsky Park 50.0 Acres Developed Sub-Total(Community Parks) 90.0 Acres Sierra Heights Park 4.7 Acres Developed Maplewood Park 4.8 Acres Developed Cascade Park 10.7 Acres Developed Lake Youngs Park 2.5 Acres Developed Sub-Total(Neighborhood Parks) 22.7 Acres May Creek Greenway 150.0 Acres Renton Park 19.0 Acres Metro Waterworks 10.0 Acres Maplewood Heights 5.0 Acres Soos Creek Greenway 52.0 Acres Sub-Total(Open Space) 236.0 Acres Total,Public Park and Open Space Within Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas 348.7 Acres In addition to the park and open space areas,the city operates a number of specialized facilities as an ongoing component of the total recreational services it provides. Table 11-4 which follows lists the specialized facilities owned by the city as well as those specialized public facilities within the city limits which are owned by others. Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Table 11-4 Specialized Facilities within the Renton City Limits Number Facility Comments Ballfields City-owned: 1 Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park 1 Kennydale Lions Park 1 Kiwanis Park 2 Liberty Park 2 lighted 1 Maplewood Park Small Field 1 Ron Regis Lighted 1 Philip Arnold Park Lighted 1 Thomas Teasdale Park 1 Tiffany Park TOTAL 11 FIELDS Within the city limits but owned by others: 2 Hazen High School 2 Highlands Elementary School Small Fields 1 Hillcrest School Small Field 4 Honeydew Elementary School Small Fields 3 McKnight Middle School 4 Nelson Middle School Small Fields 4 Renton High School 1 Talbot Hill Elementary 1 Tiffany Park Elementary TOTAL 22 FIELDS Number Facility Comments Football/Soccer Fields City-owned: 1 Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park 1 Kennydale Lions Park 1 Kiwanis Park 1 Philip Arnold Park 1 lighted 1 Ron Regis Park 1 lighted 1 Thomas Teasdale Park 1 Tiffany Park TOTAL 8 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 3L/ Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Tennis Courts City-owned: 2 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 2 Highlands Park 2 lighted 2 Kiwanis Park 3 Liberty Park 3 lighted 1 North Highlands Park 2 Philip Arnold Park 2 lighted 3 Talbot Hill Reservoir 2 Tiffany Park TOTAL 17 COURTS Within the city limits but owned by others: 4 Hazen High School 4 McKnight Middle School 2 Nelson Middle School 5 Renton High School TOTAL 15 COURTS Swimming Pools Within the city limits but owned by others: 1 Hazen High School Indoor TOTAL 1 POOL Level of Service Standards for park and recreation levels of service were first established nationally based on "Standard Demand" and have been modified at state and local levels to meet local needs. The national level of service (LOS) standards were established by committees of recreation professionals based on practical experience in the field, and are felt to be most useful in quantifiable terms, i.e. acres of park land per population served. The most recognized standards are those developed by the National Recreation Park Association(NRPA). In 1983 that organization published a report titled "Recreation,Park and Open Space Standards" that is well recognized in the recreation field. The Park CFP establishes a 2-tiered approach: 1)an overall LOS standard based on total population and total acreage; and 2)LOS standards for individual neighborhoods and for specific types of parks and facilities within parks. The overall LOS is a gauge of whether the City is meeting overall concurrence for GMA. The second tier identifies areas where deficiencies exist so the City can target it's funds to eliminate those deficiencies while still maintaining overall LOS. The overall LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its Comprehensive Park,Recreation and Open Space plan is 27.8 acres/1,000 population. The current LOS in Renton is 24.4 acres/1,000 population. The current LOS within Renton's Potential Annexation Areas(PAA's)is only 6.9 acres/1,000,which reduces today's overall Planning Area LOS to 15.5 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 _r Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT 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. TABLE 1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) - OVERALL Park& Open Existing LOS Space Land Population (Acres/1,000) City of Renton 1,179.95 48,270 24.4 Renton's PAA's 348.70 50,600 6.9 Total Planning Area 1,528.65 98,870 15.5 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. The table below summarizes this information, with detail provided on the following pages. TABLE 2 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) —BY PARK TYPE Figures shown are in acres/1,000 population NRPA City of Renton's Planning Recommended Standard Renton PAA's Area Standard Neighborhood Parks 1-2 1.8 0.4 1.1 1.2 Community Parks 5-8 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.1 Regional Parks 5-10 1.1 0 0.6 11.1 Open Space --- 13.3 4.7 8.9 12.7 Linear Parks &Trails --- 1.9 0 0.9 0.9 Special Parks& --- 4.0 0 1.9 0.8 Facilities Total Park& Open 15-20 24.4 6.9 15.5 27.8 Space Land LOS = (Existing Park Land) — (Existing Population) 1,000 36 Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT 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 which 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): 2.0 acres/1,000 population Recommended LOS Standard: 1.1 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 on community parks. 37 Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT 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. NRPA Standard: 5-10 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Renton: 1.1 acres/1,000 population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 0.6 acres/1,000 population Recommended Standard: 11.1 acres/1,000 population Comments: Renton has the potential for developing another regional park located in the Cedar River corridor. The recommended standard of 11.1 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. With these parks shifted to the Regional Park category,the existing ratio is much closer to the recommended standard than the above ratio indicates. 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) 13.3 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 8.9 acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 12.7 acres/1,000 Population Comments: The recommended LOS Standard of 12.7 acres per 1,000 population represents an increase over the present situation, as several additional open space systems have been identified for preservation. A majority of this type of land is wetlands, steep slopes, or otherwise not suitable for recreational development. 5. Linear Parks Definition: Linear parks are open space areas,landscaped areas,trail systems and other land that generally follow stream corridors,ravines or other elongated features, such as a street,railroad or power line easement. This type of park area usually consists of open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of this type of area. Existing LOS (Renton): 1.9 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 0.9 acres/1,000 Population Recommended Standard: 0.9 acres/1,000 Population Comments: 31 Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT 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): 4.0 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 1.9 acres/1,000 Population Recommended Standards: 0.8 acres/1,000 Population 7. Total Park Land Presently,Renton has 1,179.95 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 PAA's (Potential Annexation Areas),the total amount of park and open space land within Renton's planning area is 1,528.65 acres. NRPA Standard: 15-20 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Renton): 24.4 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): 15.5 acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 27.8 acres/1,000 Population Comments: While the recommended standard of 27.8 acres per 1,000 population seems very 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 and will come to the City through the land development process. 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: 1 field per 2,423 population Recommended Standard: 1 field per 2,000 population * Small fields were excluded for purposes of evaluation. Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT 2. Soccer Fields NRPA Standard: 1 field per 10,000 population Existing Participation: 75 %below average Existing Inventory: 15 fields Existing Facility Ratio: 1 field per 3,230 population Recommended Standard: 1 field per 3,000 population Comments Because of the extremely high existing facility ratio and the below average participation rate,the recommended standard--while substantially above the NRPA standard—is roughly the same as the existing facility ratio. 3. Tennis Courts NRPA Standard: 1 court per 2,000 population Existing Participation: 15 %below average Existing Inventory: 32 courts Existing Facility Ratio: 1 court per 1,514 population Recommended Standard: 1 court per 1,500 population Comments Based on the substantially above average existing facility ratio,the recommended standard is equivalent to the existing facility ratio. 4. Swimming Pools(indoor) NRPA Standard: 1 pool per 20,000 population Existing Participation: Average Existing Inventory: 1 indoor pool Existing Facility Ratio: 1 pool per 43,000 population Recommended Standard: 1 pool per 20,000 population Comments The recommended standard would place Renton at the NRPA standard. 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,2001-2006 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 projected growth--and therefore, demand--occurs. The Table also includes potential funding sources for each project, where known. 40 Amended 12/12/97 Draft 3 Revision 2/14/01 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Table 11 -5 Parks Capital Facilities 2001-2006 Park Projects 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Future Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion 400,000 400,000 Heather Downs Development. 50,000 500,000 New Maintenance Facility 40,000 500,000 300,000 Grant Matching Fund 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Carr Road Acquisition 550,000 Family Aquatic Center. 200,000 5,000,000 Cedar River Trail Extension 100,000 1,100,000 Golf Course 120,000 40,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 TOTAL 1,170,000 2,030,000 1,000,000 1,400,000 1,700,000 5,400,000 General Fund 300,000 1,290,000 700,000 900,000 700,000 200,000 Licenses and Fees* 670,000 40,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 Other Taxes 200,000 Grants 200,000 700,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Loans Not Funded 5,000,000 TOTAL 1,170,000 2,030,000 1,000,000 1,400,000 1,700,000 5,400,000 *Includes Parks Mitigation Fees in 2001 and Golf Course fees to fund Golf Course Capital Improvements. PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2001-2006 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 120 employees.. Based on Renton's 2000 population of 48,270,the current level of service of police department employees to population is nearly 2.5 employees per 1,000 residents. The current level of service for officers is nearly 1.75 officers per 1,000 residents. With the population of Renton projected to grow to over 56,534 residents by the year 2006,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,2001-2006 At the August 1999 meeting of the Valley Communications Board the mayors of the five owner cities (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 surchange on calls for the past two years for construction of a new facility. The net costs,with a assumption that a new dispatch system is not needed,will be$12,571,343. Each member city will be responsible for approximately$2.5 million of the construction costs. As of September 1999,the estimated annual costs of the debt will be approximately$300,000 over 20 years. In the Capital Facilities Plan this cost is divided evenly between the Police and Fire Departments. { Table 12-1 Public Safety Projects 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Valley Communications Center* $150,000 $150,000 150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,01 Total $150,000' $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $151 *Cost shown in 2001-2005 Capital Facilities Plan is split between the Public Safety and Fire Functions. FIRE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2001-2006 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 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 bums and the temperatures created by the fire. Eventually temperatures become so high that"flashover" occurs,a process in which all combustible material in a room or building ignites simultaneously. Reaching a fire before flashover occurs is an important consideration in fire suppression. Studies have shown that under normal dispatching procedures fire crews have about four to six minutes to reach a fire before flashover occurs. Fire flow is the second criterion for measuring the level of service for fire suppression. Fire flow refers to the amount of water that is available to spray on a fire and extinguish it. Understandably,water is an essential element for fire suppression, and the hotter a fire,the more water that must be available to extinguish it. Determining what is adequate fire flow depends upon a building's type of construction, floor area, and use. For example, adequate fire flow in the city's water system for a single family wood frame house is 1,000 gallons per minute(gpm) whereas adequate fire flow for a shopping center or an industrial park is approximately 4,500 gpm. The third aspect of establishing level of service is personnel. Having trained firefighters in sufficient numbers is crucial to putting out a fire safely and efficiently. The number and training of firefighters also must fit with the department's strategic or tactical approach to fighting fires. The Renton fire department uses an aggressive attack strategy as opposed to a defensive approach strategy. 2/14/01 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,2001-2006 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 2006,it is anticipated that some actions may be needed over the next six years to maintain the response time level of service standards. In the east Renton area the agreement with Fire District 25 whereby the city has assumed operational control of that facility coupled with Station 12 and the water system plan for the area should assure that both response time and fire flow standards will be maintained. In the Kennydale area a new station 15 will be constructed over the next six years. The station will be staffed with three firefighters, seven days a week. This means an additional fifteen firefighters along with the purchase of equipment. The total project includes the purchase of land, design, construction,hiring personnel, and purchase of equipment. Presently the northerly portion of the area is within the ten minute response time standard but outside of the five minute response time standard for Station 12. As pointed out in the Fire Department Master Plan,a new station 15 closer to I-405 and 44th would provide five minute response time coverage to the entire area. Over the next six years some single family and multi-family growth is projected for the Kennydale/Highlands area, as is some employment growth. This growth would increase somewhat the importance of providing improved service to the area in the near term. Given the residential and employment growth projected for the area after the year 2006, the importance of taking actions to improve the five-minute response time coverage increase substantially during that period. The solution recommended in the Fire Master Plan is to relocate station 12 further to the east. Along with the building of Station 15,the City will rebuild Station 12 to the east to 1/S better serve the growing Highlands area. This project includes purchasing land, design, and construction. The valley industrial area is the area most in need of a new facility. While much of the area is within both the five minute and ten minute response times for Stations 11 and 13,projected employment and multi-family growth for the area indicates an additional facility is needed. Adding to the need for a new facility is the fact that Station 13 has 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 decision was made whether to build a new station or collocate with District 40. With the decision not to collate a station,the need for la new facility is apparent. The project includes design and construction only. Table 13-1 Fire Capital Facilities 2001-2006 Fire Projects 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 'Station 15 1,850,000 Station 12 450,000 1,500,000 Station 13 $1,600,000 Valley Communications Center $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total 2,000,000 1,150,000 1,650,000 2,070,000 150,000 Sources of Funds: General Fund Licenses and Fees Bonds Grants Other Taxes 1,850,000 450,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 Not Funded $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total 2,000,000 1,150,000 1,650,000 2,070,000 150,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/ADMINISTRATION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2001-2006 The Economic Development program for the City is planning three major capital projects to support growth and economic expansion during the 2001 to 2006 planning period. The Port Quendall development is a 20-acre site on the southeast shore of Lake Washington. The project includes hazardous waste clean-up planning, clean-up, shoreline park development and sale of the upland property for private development. The site is contaminated with coal tar and creosotes. It needs to be restored to an environmentally safe habitat site for fish and wildlife and an area that would provide opportunity for public access to the shoreline. The Performing Arts Center is a new capital project emerging out of a unique partnership between the community,the City of Renton, and the Renton School District to transform the Renton High School Auditorium into a state of the art, 550-seat facility for the performing arts. This alliance capitalized on the planned upgrade of the high school auditorium and mobilized efforts to raise$1.5 million.The City has pledged$400,000(which will be matched by community contributions)and set aside$50,000 for the architectural design of the facility. The rest of the funds will come from the community and from matching grants from foundations. Neighborhood Grant Program provides $50,000 to be distributed in small matching grants to organized neighborhood associations that draw membership from a commonly recognized geographic neighborhood 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. 97 Table 14-1 Economic Development/Administration Facilities 2001-2006 Economic Development Projects 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Neighborhood Grants 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Port Quendall 6,866,000 6,616,000 3,416,000 Performing Arts Center 200,000 200,000 Total 7,116,000 6,666,000 3,466,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Sources of Funds: General Fund 250,000 250,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Licenses and Fees Bonds Grants 3,325,000 3,200,000 1,600,000 Not Funded 3,541,000 3,416,000 1,816,000 Total 7,116,000 6,866,000 3,466,000 50,000 50,000 50,000