Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-012 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTON HEARING EXAMINER newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months RENTON,WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County meeting in the Council Chambers on the Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the onth floor oof City Hall,2000 Renton,tWashington- _ r on February 22, at 9:00 AM to con- State of Washington for King County. sider the following petition: The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County CITY UNIVERSITY APPEAL Journal not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers AAD 00 012 (andpp g y Appeal of mitigation measures imposed during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a on the proposed construction of an office building, File No. LUA-99-151,SA-A,ECF._ Location:1000 SW 43rd St. City Universal Appeal All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public on: 2/11/00 Hearing. Questions should be directed to as publishedthe Hearing Examiner,425-430-6515. Publication Date:February 11,2000 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$28.75, Published in the South County Journal charged to Acct. No. 8051067. February 11,2000.7190 Legal Number 7190 1 egal Clerk, ou ounty ourn Subscribed and sworn before me on this I b 'day of_C , 2000 e *Ai os?' ' (11(.— _,ne. _'—' = Notary Public of the State of Washington residing in Renton %.' `• King County, Washington Sent by: THE PERDUE GROUP 2Ofiti4y1145 uJ/ IA/uu Io; +o JUU Qca rays iri CITY OF RENTON tom. "LL Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman February 14, 2000 (S' 4101R / 3City— IL�J U 4444 0441470 lNE7P Shepherd Investing, Inc. 335 116th Avenue SE I3ellevue, WA 98004 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination re City University, File No. LUA99-1 5 1,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA00 12,AAD 4 Oo- Gentlemen: Due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing regarding the above-referenced matter has again been rescheduled. The hearing date is set for Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions, please contact this office. TleSincerely, e'p tAX" vV-L/Q ailrjr ` Fred J. Kaucfnan ' �,P/rA 1� U�VI l w q IIearing Examiner 1 i• pt, W cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Peter Rosen Uzs ySa-, 6 �Z � 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 ®This paper contains 50%recycled mature',20%post consumer CIT OF RENTON %a l% Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman February 14, 2000 Shepherd Investing, Inc. 335 116th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination re City University, File No. LUA99-151,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA00-%l2,AAD n 1 Gentlemen: Due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing regarding the above-referenced matter has again been rescheduled. The hearing date is set for Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kau man Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Peter Rosen 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 4, CIT1 )F RENTON Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren MEMORANDUM To: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: February 8, 2000 Subject: Appeal of ERC's Determination re City University File No. LUA 99-151, SAL A Appeal File No. LUA 00-42, AAD ego I note that you have changed the hearing date on this appeal to February 22, 2000. I have plans to be out of town that week. I have been specifically requested to handle this appeal, by staff, so I cannot assign it to another member of my staff. Could you please continue the hearing to a later date. As matters now stand,I do not see any other conflicts in my schedule on Tuesdays. Lawrence J. W en LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington. A8:171.30. Post Office Box 626 - 100 S. 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425)255-8678 • This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer •. CIT" OF RENTON . 'ram. Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman January 31, 2000 Shepherd Investing, Inc. 335 116th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination re City University, File No. LUA99-151,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA00 X12,AAD 5/t 00 z. Gentlemen: Due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing regarding the above-referenced matter has been rescheduled. The hearing date is set for Tuesday, February 22, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Peter Rosen 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 Cam)Thic naner cnntainc 50%rervcled material.20%oast consumer CIT. OF RENTON :.i Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman January 25, 2000 Shepherd Investing, Inc. 335 116th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination re City University, File No. LUA99-151,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA00412,AAD -/ r Gentlemen: We received your appeal on January 24, 2000, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, February 29,2000, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, \61)v-i\P—Qt-- Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Peter Rosen 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 . - ((:-(:;_..) SHEPHERD GRgi.jr Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way CITY OF RENTON Renton, WA 98055 �� I (.,l-i,r/j Subject: Appeal of Mitigation Measures JAN 2 4 2000 City University CITY RECEIVED S OFFICE Project No. LUA-99-151,SA-A,ECF To Whom It May Concern: Having reviewed the January 6, 2000 notification letter signed by Peter Rosen, for the Environmental Review Committee; Shepard Investing, Inc., the property owner requests an appeal of the two mitigation measures imposed on the proposed project. Thank you, Shepherd Investinci. Inc. • 335 116th Avenue SE • Bellevue,WA 98004• 425.643.2000• Fax 425.450.4655 - -., , . , . ' . . ., NOTES RECEIPT DATE cc cli e/oil erd ( 1 ve30:00 . LJJ • RECEIVED FROM. ADDRESS g 5- )1/011 Rye -S -', -"R,-,//foie , ixhq 900/6 - *I FOR iiiffea i- k RC - L OA- - 9 9-/-6/, 5 glY ii, 6(F i Ill-,a lord c• ACCOUNT HOW PAID LL. g 0 _a___41C =5... AMT.OF ACCOUNT CASH' 1 1I-1, =(53 e AMT. j V 0 0 PAID CHECK •— 4.-. In -.-- i CC CC BALANCE MONEY ORDER - BY DUE 01998 REPIFORM®8L802 41 . .. . • , . . . . ` s 1 2 3 BEFORE T HEARING EXAMINER 5 OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 6 In Re: Appeal of Environmental Review NO. LUA-00412, AAD Committee's Determination re City gb 00 O I L 7 University Appeal, MOTION BY THE CITY OF RENTON 8 FOR A PARTIAL OR A FULL DISMISSAL 9 10 Appellant. 11 12 I. FACTS 13 14 By appeal letter dated Jan y 24, 2000, the Shepherd Group appeals the 15 mitigation measures imposed on the City University Project. That appeal letter does not 16 disclose the basis for the appeal. The efore,the City files this motion to seek dismissal of 17 various legal theories that may be propounded by the appellant. 18 19 I . ISSUES 20 1. IS THIS APPEAL P ' MATURE PURSUANT TO RCW 21 43.21C.075(3)(b)? 22 2. SHOULD THE EXAMINER DISMISS ANY APPEAL ARGUMENTS �3 BASED UPON THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC AND FIRE 24 j MITIGATION POLICIES? 25 3. ' SHOULD THIS APPEAL BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO APPRISE THE CITY OF THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL? 26 2? 28 ORIGINAL MOTION BY THE CITY OF RENT N FOR A WARREN ;'A'' ''ER PARTIAL OR A FULL DISMISSAL-- 1 DEAN 6 FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 II 1 III. ARGUMENT 2 1. IS THIS APPEAL P MATURE PURSUANT TO RCW 3 43.21C.075(3)(b)? 4 RCW 43.21C.075 entitled A peals sets forth the statutory rules under which 5 SEPA appeals may be brought. Secti n 3(b) of that statute indicates as follows: 6 "If any agency has a proce ure for appeals of agency environmental 7 determinations made under t ' chapter, such procedure:... 8 (b) shall consolidate an appal of procedural issues and of substantive determinations made under t�s chapter (such as a decision to require 9 particular mitigation measure) or to deny a proposal) with a hearing or appeal on underlying governmental action ..." 10 This appeal stands alone and s not coupled with an appeal of a substantive City 11 12 decision. Therefore, it is in violation of state statute and the Examiner is without 13 authority to hear this appeal. 14 2. SHOULD THE EXAMINER DISMISS ANY APPEAL ARGUMENTS BASED UPON THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC AND FIRE 15 MITIGATION POLICIES? 16 The Hearing Examiner has no jurisdiction over the constitutionality of City 17 policy. The Examiner's appellate powers are granted under RMC 4-1-150.F. Those 18 19 powers do not include original jurisd ction to consider challenges to the constitutionality 20 of City environmental policy. The Waring Examiner's authority is defined in RMC 4-8- 21 110.E.1.c,that is: 22 "To that end, the Examiner s all have all of the powers of the office from 23 whom the appeal is taken ins far as the decision on the particular issue is concerned." 24 The ERC, in imposing trans ortation and fire mitigation fees, is implementing 25 City Council policy as established by Resolutions Nos. 2913 and 3100 adopted as SEPA 26 27 28 MOTION BY THE CITY OF RENT N FOR A WARREN B 1']ER PARTIAL OR A FULL DISMISSAL-- 2 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 substantive authoritypursuant to RM 4-9-070.N.2.c. Copies of the relevant resolutions P 2 are attached hereto for the Examiner' reference and consideration. 3 4 The ERC, as an administrativ body of the City of Renton, is not in a position to 5 reject and ignore the policy statements made by the City Council. The City Council is 6 the official policy body of the City lbf Renton and the Administration has the duty to 7 implement the policy decisions mad by the City Council. Since the ERC is without 8 authority to ignore the traffic miti ation policy and the fire mitigation policy, the 9 Examiner is without authority to i nore those policies on appeal. Therefore, any 10 argument made by appellants tha the policies, as applied to this project are 11 12 unconstitutional or illegal, must be rejected by the Examiner as being arguments that are 13 outside his authority to consider. 14 3. SHOULD THIS APPEAL BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO APPRISE THE CITY OF THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL? 15 16 This appeal should be dismiss-d for failure to state grounds for the appeal. 17 The appeal letter in this matt-r does nothing more than appeal the transportation 18 and fire mitigation fees applied by th- ERC. There is no basis stated for this appeal. This 19 failure is a fundamental violation of .ue process in that it fails to notify the City of the 20 grounds and reasons for this appeal. The City is left to speculate. This failure results in 21 the City having to file this motion an• to guess at the grounds for the appeal. The lack of 22 ?3 grounds in the appeal letter likely will result in the City being surprised at the tenor and 24 direction of the appeal when it is heard before the Examiner. The appellant should not be 25 allowed to gain an advantage by filing a cryptic appeal letter containing no basis for the 26 appeal. 27 28 MOTION BY THE CITY OF RENT I N FOR A WARREN BA 'ER PARTIAL OR A FULL DISMISSAL-- 3 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW l00 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated hereinabove the City moves for dismissal of all or part of 3 4 this appeal. 5 DATED this 9th day of March, 2000. 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 WARREN, BARBER,DEAN& 8 FONTES,P.S. 9 10 Lawrence J. Warren, W A#5853 11 , Attorney for City of Renton 12 3.29:23:as. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2u 25 26 27 28 MOTION BY THE CITY OF RENTON FOR A WARREN BA PARTIAL OR A FULL DISMISSAL --4 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 11111, VV iVVV r� .ry '_. -- , CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2913 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A FIRE MITIGATION FEE AND DECLARING IT A SEPA POLICY. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has a Fire Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the city presently has sufficient personnel and equipment to serve the City of Renton' s basic fire needs, with the exception of certain discrete areas of the city; and WHEREAS, new development is quickly eliminating the capacity of the city to meet the response times of the Fire Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with a Fire Mitigation Fee Policy which seeks to impose on new development that portion of the cost to continue to meet the Fire Master Plan response times, but only that portion attributable to new growth; and WHEREAS, the fire training site at North Bend has been closed and there is no assurance of adequate training facilities elsewhere. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City Council of the City of Renton hereby adopts the Fire Mitigation Fee Policy which is attached hereto as a policy of the City of Renton. SECTION III . The City Council of the City of Renton adopts the Fire Mitigation Fee Policy as, a SEPA policy. 1 2913 ESOLUTI N NO. SECTION IV. The City Council directs the staff and administration to utilize this policy as guidance in mitigating the environmental effects of new development. However, should any applicant refuse to avail itself of this Fire Mitigation Fee Y► Polic then the city staff anci administration shall independently analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed development on- the fire service. Likewise, should the staff reviewing a project determine that there are specific attributes of the project that make this mitigation policy inadequate or unworkable, then the staff is authorized to require additional studies and/or environmental review and to impose mitigation outside the scope of this policy. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this jilluiday of July ► 1992 . Marilyn etersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 20th day of July ► 1992 . E 1 ymer, M or Approved to form: Lawrence J. War n, City Attorney RES .222 : 7/10/92 2 1 u u♦ VV 'LVVV AL--S -- -- 1\6.11 VIl '._ I I VLLI\I\ VI t,. _ "' _ 1 •VJ/ lC) FIRE MITIGATION FEE (F.M.F. ) POLICY Introduction: This Fire Department mitigation fee policy as prepared shall constitute a S . E. P. A. policy as adopted by the City of Renton, City Council,. 1. Basic premise. Except for those discreet areas of the city, there is presently sufficient personnel and equipment to serve the City of Renton' s basic fire needs . Response times of fire apparatus to areas located nearby existing fire stations continue to be adequate, while the more outlying areas suffer from slower response times . One basic measure of the adequacy of fire service is fire response system ( equipment and personnel) and the proximity of the call to a station . As the city continues to develop, capacity is consumed requiring additional capacity to be provided. A property near an existing fire station already has the benefit of the proximity to the station, but would benefit from increased capacity. A property more remote from an existing fire station would benefit both from expanded capacity and from construction of a closer fire facility. 2 . Universal contributions. Those parties developing close to existing, fire stations should contribute to a fire mitigation fund because they are using capaciy that would otherwise serve more distant development. As close 31.n properties develop, they restrict the capacity of the fire department to answer calls in a timely • manner to those properties located farther out, and thereby necessitate the development of additional fire stations . Those parties developing in more outlying areas shall contribute a fire mitigation fee because the capacity of the system must be increased to serve the property as in4ll occurs, and construction of additional fire facilities in close proximity will improve response times closer to existing fire stations. _ Any substantial remodel of a residential or commercial stricture or any conversion in use such that the gross square footage [of the building will be increased will trigger and additional fire mitigation fee based upon the differential increase in the square footage or number of dwelling units. • Exception: Single Family residential property will be exempted from any' added mitigation in the case of remodel . 3 . Assumptions, Components anc Categories. A. Current City Boundaries: As a point of reference, the city boundaries at the time of adoption of this policy shall be used 'as a determinant or benchmark as to the . extent capacity of service according to the Fire Master Plan. • B. Property Categories : For the purpose of simplicity developed and develop ble properties are categorized into 3 basic property groups, Commercial, Multi-family residential and Single Family residential . Commercial 1 property shall be hose property uses that would otherwise be classified as industrial, business, retail n sales and services, whlolesale sales and storage. C. Capital Improvements and Expenditures : The Fire Master Plan has identified a number of necessary capital improvements and expenditures . The addition of two new fire stations, relocation of an existing station, construction of a fire training facility, acquisition of fire vehicles and increases in staffing levels have been specifically identified (see appendix A) . D. Fire Department Service Levels : The Fire Department service levels to the property categories identified in section 3B shall be u ed as a customer classification in which to measure the extent of service provided for both Fire and Aid responses and to determine that portion of capital expenditures and improvements to be used as a base line for determining fees ( see appendix B) . 3 . Construction, Equipment and Staffing 'Costs. The projected' costs of; Capital Expenditures alnd Improvements will be the basis for determining the construction, equipment, and staffing costs (C.E.S . ) ' to be used in calcul ting the mitigation fee for each categoryl (see appendix A) . 4. Existing Property Use Data. The Planning divisions calculations of existing single family and multi-family dwelling units and their estimation of square-footage of existing commercially developed properties will be used in the respective formulas ! as constants (see appendix C) . 5. Review and Adjustment. Bi-annually the C.E. S. and fire department service levels by ca egory will be reviewed to determin e the validity of the calcula ions used and an adjustment if necessary will b'e .made and through the adoption process . 6. Methodology Application. New projects when proposed and upon building; permit application shall have there fire mitigation fee category determined and the appropriate fee calculated by applying the respective Methodology. A. Commercial Properties : F.M.F. _ (Proposed Gross Sq. Footage) X (37% C.E. S•. ) (Total Existing Commercial Property Sq. Footage) B. Multi-Family Properties: • F.M.F. = (Proposed Number of Dwelling Units ) X (28% C.E. S . 1 (Total Number of Existing Multi-Family Dwelling Units) . C. Single Family Properties I 1 2 • F.M.F. = (Proposed Number of Dwelling Units ) X (35% C.E. S) (Total Number o Existing Single Family Dwelling Units) Examples of how these formulas are to be applied can be found in appendix D. 7 . Fee ' Payment Policy. Payment of the fire mitigation fee will be made at the time the buildiig permit is issued, as one of the demand for structural fire fighting and, aid unit support begins at the construction phase. Fees will be calculated by the Fire Prevention Division and collected by the Building Division. All funds will be held by the Finance Department and accounted for separately according to the Fir Department capital improvement and expenditure needs . 8. City Participation. The e is currently an_ unmet need in t Renton for fire service. The C'Ity of Renton plans o contribute to capital improvements and staffing to meet that current unmet need. While the exact amount of that contribution is difficult to calculate, the city plans to meet those needs by taking the following actions : A. Expending funds to supplement for loss of collections under this policy. Estimates are never fully realized from development. B. 1 Paying for those inst nces in which actual costs exceed estimates . C. Paying for unanticipated costs . D. Advancing money, when necessary, to build improvements when sufficient funds have not been accumulated. r E. Making outright city. contributions . F. Managing the system and contributing staff time, design time, engineering time and other city services . G. Providing ongoing ma agement of the fire mitigation system. H. ' Funding staffing after the three year time period addressed in this policy. I . , Paying funds due to underestimation of fees required from ' new construction as fee calculations are based on existing development rather than just new development. CITY9 : 29 : as . 3 PPENDIX *A* CAPITAL IMPRO EMENTS AND EXPENDITURES The following is a list of items contained within the Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Renton regarding future Fire Department n eds as identified by the Fire Master Plan. ;Construction: Valley Station #14 and Tlaining Center 4,742 , 000 (Less 2 . 5 million rec eiv a from Metro Mitigation) 2 , 242 , 000 Ke;nnydale Fire Station and Station #12 Relocation 3 , 716, 000 Eq'� P ui ment: Acquisition and replacem nt of Capital Fire Apparatus. 3 First Run Pumpers @ $225 , 000 over 7 years 96, 500 3 Reserve Pumpers @ $225, 000 over 15 years 45, 000 • 1 Aerial Ladder Truck @ $650, 000 over 10 years 65, 000 . 4 Aid Units @ $65, 000 over 7 years 37, 000 • Staffing: Costs for additional fire fighters to staff new fire stations and to bring staffing to Fire Master Plan recommended levels for 3 years. Three years is used, as it takes three years before new construction is added to the tax roles. • These costs have been determined using 1991 dollars. - • 54Fire Fighters 7, 200, 000 C.E. S. Total ..Costs 13 ,401, 500 fmfapdAl A PENDIX *B* 1990 FIRE DE ARTMENT SERVICE LEVELS Calls to identified Property Categories . Total calls for service 5381 Less Outside or !'in the street" calls 1228 Total calls to identified Property Categories 4153 1000 Commercial Calls for assistance 1558 37% Multi-family Calls for assistance 1145 28% 7 Single Family Calls for assistance 1450 35% • _- _. NIL ORANDUM APPENDIX C DATE: September 17, 1991 TO: Jim Matthew, Deputy Fir Chief • THROUGH: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner rn FROM: Mike Kattermanrr` enior Planner, ext. 6190 SUBJECT: Land Use and Housing Data As your request, following is the best available data we have on housing units and commercial.and industrial land use in the city. • The 1990 Census counted a total of 19,243 housing units in Renton as of April 1, 1990. A. breakdown of the housing types is not }het available from the Census. The city's estimate as of April 1 1991, based on building permits issued (though not all have necessarily been built) .since the census indicates a potential total of 20,125 dwelling units. Using the relative percentages of housing types established from earlier data, the housing stock is 49% single. family; 48% multi-family, and 3% mobille homes. Housing Type % of Total # of Units Single Family 49.0% 9,861 Multi-family (includes duplex) 48.0% 9,660 Mobile,Home • 3.0% 604 100.0% 20,125 • Another request was for the total acreage in,the city developed as commercial or industrial. Based on data in the Community Profile (Oct. 1989), the city had a total of 10,304 acres, of • which 2,200 acres (about 21%) was developed as commercial or industrial. Finally, you also asked how many acres are available for development as commercial or industrial. Again, based on the 1989 Community Profile, the city had 2,294 acres of vacant land. ;Of that, 26.1%, or 599. acres, was.available•for commercial or industrial development. It is important to note that this figure dos not include lands which would have to be taken out ' for protection of critical areas. . . I hope' this information meets your needs. Additional 1990 Census data should be available in the next couple of months and we are currently working on updating our vacant lands information. Please check back with me in about a month and I should have more up-to-date information. • cc: Lynn Guttmann • ? Kay Shoudy RR IS UO 'c ..I] '._I` ��: •l 8 poi . - cry crry OF RENxON • - ME ORANDUM • DATE: , October 7 , 1991 • TO: Jim Matthew, Deputy Fire Chief THROUGH: Mary Lynne Myer,1Principal Planner. FRoM:' Mike Kattermann4nior Planner, ext. 6190 • 1 SUBJECT: Land Use Data • As you requested, I have prepared the following information on the amount of developed commercial/industrial square footage in the city. The data used are from the 1988 King County Assessor files and the 1989 Business License files . These data were compiled and analyzed for use in the 1990 transportation study conducted by Barton-Aschman Associates . We are in the process of evaluating more' recent data from these two sources and putting it into a usable form, but that will probably not be ready before the end of this year. In addition, we will make acreage/square .footage comparisons at that time.: Any comparison made prior to that • evaluation being complete would not necessarily be accurate. Please contact me if you need to make any comparisons between these figures and any other data. I will send you the updated information as soon as it is ready. The total building area in commercial and industrial use in the city for 1988 was 9 , 476, 763 square feet. That figure. excludes public schools, churches , and government uses . These uses constitute another 472, 475 square feet. As I; mentioned on the telephone, the figures are dated but they are the best_ we have available at this time . I hope this information will be helpful. in your project. Please let me know if you have any questions about these figures or .if you need additional information. • cc: ' Lynn Guttmann • • . Kay Shoudy . ••I•I J.C.• IJ I 1I WI V L I SrLVI\I\ VI N..• 1 a .L • A$PENDIX *D* EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF FIRE MITIGATION FORMULAS Example 1. Proposal to develop 100, 000 square foot office building. F.M.F. _ (Proposed Gross Sq. Footage) X (37% C. E. S. ) (Total Existing Commercial Property sq. Footage) F.M. F. = 100 , 000 X . 37 ( 13 , 401,500) 9, 476, 763 F.M.F. = 100 , 000 X 4 , 958 , 555 9, 476, 763 F.M. F. = 100, 000 X . 52 F.M.F. = $52, 000 Example 2. Proposal to develop 150 unit apartment. F.M.F. = (Proposed Number of Dwelling Units) X (28% C. E. S. ) (Total # of Existing Multi-family Dwelling Units) F.M.F. = 150 X . 28 (13, 4011500) 9, 660 F.M.F. = 150 X 3 ,752 ,420 9, 660 F.M.F. = 150 X 388 F.M. F. _ $58, 200 Example 3. Proposal to build one single family home. F.M.F. = (Proposed # of Dwelling Units X (35% C. E. S. ) (Total # of Existing Single Family Dwelling Units) F.M.F. = 1 X . 35 (13 ,401,500) 10,465 F.M.F. = 1 x 4, 690, 525 10, 465 F.M. F. = $448 fmfa,pdD1 TOTAL P. 10 'i ,EIBIOVE NAR 13 auuu 1 2 OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 3 4 BEFORE T HEARING EXAMINER 5 ; OF THE CITY 07 RENTON, WASHINGTON 6 In Re: Appeal of Environmental Review NO. LUA-OP0; AAD 00 Committees Determination re City 7 University Appeal, BRIEF OF THE CITYOF RENTON IN 8 SUPPORT OF THE MITIGATION FEES IMPOSED BY THE 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 10 Appellant. 11 12 I. FACTS i3 j City University has planned an expansion of its facility at 919 S.W. Grady Way, a 14 site located along one of the busiest transportation corridors in the City of Renton. The 15 J Environmental Review Committee (E C), the responsible public official under the State 16 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), conditioned the project upon payment of the 17 18 appropriate fire mitigation fee and ayment of the appropriate traffic mitigation fee. 19 From the imposition of those fees, Sh pherd Investing, Inc., ostensibly the representative 20 of the owner, has appealed. The City has previously made a motion to dismiss a portion 21 or all of this appeal based upon various grounds, but uses this brief to argue that the fees 22 are legitimate and warranted. 23 II. ISSUES 24 1.i CAN THE EXAMINER CONSIDER INFORMATION OTHER THAN THAT 25 j WHICH WAS BEFORE THE.ERC? 26 2.' DOES THE EXAMINER OR STAFF HAVE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE SEPA 27 POLICIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL? 28 r ORIGiNAL WARREN BA,':;:E,, BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 1 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW !co SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 3. IS THE CITY REQUIRED UNDER TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY 2 UNDER THE GROWTH (MANAGEMENT ACT (GMA) TO IMPOSE TRAFFIC MITIGATION AND AUTHORIZED UNDER SEPA TO IMPOSE 3 I BOTH FEES? 4 4. DOES APPELLANT HAVE AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE THE 5 CONSTITUTIONALITY OR LEGALITY OF THE SEPA MITIGATION FEES BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER? 6 5. IF THE EXAMINER HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER 7 CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE 8 MITIGATION FEES, CAN AIPPELLANT CARRY ITS BURDEN OF PROOF? 9 III. ARGUMENT 10 11 1. CAN THE EXAMINER CONSIDER INFORMATION OTHER THAN THAT 12 WHICH WAS BEFORE THE ERC? 13 This appeal is from a decision of the ERC. As in all appeals, the appellate body, 14 inthis instance the Hearing Examiner must review the same record as the one which was 15 before the deciding body. One cannot question the wisdom of a body's decision, and 16 then present new information which was not before that body. Therefore, the Examiner 17 must limit his considerations to the record which was before the ERC. 18 It is the established rule that the Examiner must give substantial weight to the 19 20 decision of the ERC, Renton Municipal Code(RMC) section 4-8-110.E.7.a. 21 It is impossible to give the decision of the ERC substantial weight and at the same 22 time consider new evidence. Therefore, no new information should be presented in the 23 record, and the Examiner should be limited to considering information in the record 24 which was before the ERC. 25 26 2. DOES THE EXAMINER OR STAFF HAVE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE SEPA 27 POLICIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL? 28 WARREN BA 1ER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 2 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 The Examiner must enforce the transportation and fire mitigation policies as 2 established by the City Council. 3 41 The Renton City Council, pur uant to RMC section 4-9-070.N.2.c, has adopted as 5 substantive SEPA authority, amongs other things, the traffic mitigation resolution and 6 fee and the fire mitigation resolution and fee. Therefore, these policies and fees are 7 established as substantive SEPA authority. 8 According to the separation of powers doctrine, the administrative branch of 9 government is to enforce the policies established by the legislative body. City staff, 10 including the ERC, is without authority to ignore or refuse to apply policy established by 11 12 the City Council. Therefore, the transportation mitigation fee and the fire mitigation fee 13 must be applied to projects according to the terms of the underlying policies. There is no 14 argument that can be made that this project is exempt from either fee. 15 ' Since the Hearing Examiner's appellate authority, pursuant to RMC section 4-8- 16 110.E.4.a, is the same as the authority of the underlying body, in this case the ERC, the 17 Examiner likewise cannot ignore or refuse to apply the policies. 18 ' 19 3.1 IS THE CITY REQUIREDL ER TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. (GMA) TO IMPOSE 20 ' TRAFFIC MITIGATION AND AUTHORIZED UNDER SEPA TO IMPOSE BOTH FEES? 21 According to the GMA, the City must impose the transportation mitigation fee, 22 23 and both the transportation mitigation fee and fire mitigation fee are authorized under 24 SEPA. 25 The City of Renton is requir d to plan according to the GMA, Chapter 36.70.A 26 RCW. As part of its planning effort, the City is required to adopt a Transportation 27 Element which includes, amongst other things, level of service standards, identification 28 WARREN BARBER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 3 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I00 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 of system expansion needs and, perhaps most importantly, a system to finance 2 improvements identified in the Comprehensive Plan. According to RCW 3 4 36.70A.070(6)(e), the City must a o adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit 5 development approval if the development causes a level of service on the transportation 6 facility to decline below the standards adopted in the Transportation Element of the 7 Comprehensive Plan. 8 . The City of Renton has taken a somewhat novel approach to the level of service 9 standards. The City has developed a travel time contour concept that does not focus on 10 11 any one intersection or mode of transportation, but rather focuses on the entire City and 12 all modes of transportation. However, the entire system is based on the premise that the 13 transportation mitigation fees are p id and that they may be accumulated and used 14 anywhere within the system for syste l improvements. At the point when the travel time 15 contours policy is violated, all develo went within the City must stop. 16 Key to the financing plan is that new development pay its proportionate share of 17 the cost of new transportation improvements. Appellant's project is being asked to do 18 19 exactly that by application of the t ansportation mitigation fee. There is no logical 20 principled reason why this developm nt should be singled out to be exempt or to avoid 21 the fee when others are required to pay the fee. There is no question that this 22 development contributes to the transportation deficiencies of the City of Renton 23 transportation system and it should pa its fair share. 24 1 SEPA, Chapter 43.21 C RCW, is implemented by the Washington Administrative 25 Code (WAC) Chapter 197-11. WAC 197-11-444 lists elements of the environment. 26 27 Included within elements of the environment as section 2.c, is Transportation, and 2.d.i, 28 WARREN BA r 1ER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 4 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 Fire. Therefore,the subject of this pr ject's impact on the transportation and fire systems 2 of the City of Renton are appropriately analyzed by the responsible public official under 3 4 SEPA, in this case,the ERC. 5 As previously explained in this brief, the City has chosen to prepare certain 6 policies and fee schedules to proviAe a basis for the ERC to impose mitigation fees. p g 7 Under the record before the Examiner, there is no other basis upon which to mitigate the 8 impacts of this project on transportation and fire, other than the mitigation fees imposed, 9 and now under appeal. If this appeal 's successful appellant's project will have identified 10 environmental impacts that are not mitigated. At best, if appellant prevails in this appeal, 11 12 appellant can hope for a remand tote ERC. At worst, approval must be denied under 13 GMA for failure of transportation concurrency. 14 4. DOES APPELLANT HAVE AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE THE 15 CONSTITUTIONALITY OR LEGALITY OF THE SEPA MITIGATION FEES 16 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER? 17 The Examiner has no jurisdiction to consider a constitutional or legal challenge to 18 the mitigation fees only to their appli ation. Although the Examiner is sitting as a quasi 19 �judicial officer, the Examiner is not granted general jurisdiction. Rather, the Examiner's 20 role is created by statute and City ordinance. A review of the ordinance creating and 21 empowering the Examiner does not show that the Examiner has any jurisdiction 22 23 whatsoever to consider constitutional or legal challenges to established City policy. 24 What is more, the Examiner's role in considering an appeal from an administrative 25 decision is limited by RMC section 4-8-110.E.7.b. While that section does indicate that 26 the Examiner has authority when a d cision is in violation of constitutional provisions, 27 that relates to the decision itself rather than the constitutionality of a policy upon which 28 WARREN BA i'' ,CER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 5 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 • II - 1 the decision may be based. Finally, his appeal is from the imposition of the mitigation 2 fees, and not of the constitutionality o legality of the policies themselves. 3 j Appellant may be raising a net s or rough-proportionality challenge to the City's 4 5 mitigation fees. The rough propo ionality test was applied in Nolan v California 6 Coastal Comm'n, 43 U.S. 825 (198 , while the rough-proportionality test was imposed 7 by Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. . 374 (1994). However, the U.S. Supreme Court 8 recently took the opportunity to clan' those two tests. See City of Monterey v. Del 9 Monte Dunes, 119 S.Ct. 1624. In t case the court made the following statements: 10 "... we have not extended the rough-proportionality test of Dolan beyond 11 ' the special context of exactio -land-use decisions conditioning approval 12 of development on the dedication of property to public use. See Dolan, supra, at 385; Nollan v. Cali ornia Coastal Comm'n, 43 U.S. 825, 841 13 (1987). The rule applied in Dolan considers whether dedications demanded as conditions o development are proportional to the 14 development's anticipated im p acts. It was not designed to address, and is not readily applicable to, the much different questions arising where, as 15 ' here,the landowner's challen a is based not on excessive exactions but on denial of development. e believe, accordingly, that the rough- 16 proportionality test of Dolan i inapposite to a case such as this one." 17 Appellant may be relying up n the Washington state case of Benchmark v. City 18 19 of Battle Ground; 94 Wn. App. 537, 972 P.2d 554 (1999). In that case the Court of 20 Appeals for Division II did apply nexus and rough-proportionality test to off-site 21 improvements, specifically to a re uirement that the developer make certain road 22 improvements as a condition of plat pproval. However, that case supplies no authority �3 fo r appellants. Benchmark was de 'ded on March 12, 1999, while Del Monte Dunes 24 was decided on May 24, 1999. I light of the more specific U.S. Supreme Court 25 authority, contrary to the BenchmaiJ case, the Washington State Supreme Court, in a 26 27 petition for review, granted the petiti n and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to 28 WARREN BARBER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 6 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 consider the case in light of the Del Monte Dunes decision. See notation of grant of 2 petition of review contained at 138 Wn.2d 1008. 3 4 Subsequently, Division II of the Court of Appeals decided Isla Verde 5 International Holdings,Inc. v. Canuis —Wn.2d (1999) in which the court again 6 applied the nexus-rough-proportional ty test. However, the court limited its decision to a 7 requirement that the developer set ide certain property for open space. Although the 8 open space was to be maintained in o ership of the homeowner's association, the court 9 still found that this was similar to a government required dedication, and so found that the 10 nexus-rough proportionality test wa violated. It is believed that this case is under 11 12 request for review to the Washington State Supreme Court. There is no case in 13 Washington which holds that the nexus-rough-proportionality test applies to mitigation 14 fees. 15 5.1, IF THE EXAMINER HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER 16 CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE MITIGATION FEES, CAN APPELLANT CARRY ITS BURDEN OF PROOF? 17 Even if the nexus-rough-pro rtionality test is applied to the transportation and 18 fire mitigation fees, they easily pass hose tests. There is no doubt that this construction 19 20 project will have impacts on both he transportation and fire systems of the City of 21 Renton. According to the decision o page 3, section 4, this project will generate 440.5 22 new average daily transportation trip . As the Examiner is well aware, the Grady Way 23 corridor is extremely congested, and o these new trips will have definite impacts on that 24 corridor. The transportation mitiga ion fee is roughly proportional in that the policy 25 calculates the new transportation im rovements necessary to handle growth, calculates 26 27 the number of total trips from new growth, and then assigns a per trip fee to new growth. 28 WARREN BA BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 7 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 The number of new average daily tri s for a project is then multiplied by the fee per trip 2 to.generate a total mitigation fee. Therefore, this new growth pays only its proportion of 3 4 the expenditures required to meet the impacts of all new growth. Similarly, the fire 5 mitigation fee operates on the premise that the level of service in the City was acceptable 6 at the time the policy was established, but that new growth in the City steadily erodes the 7 ability of the fire department to respond to fire and emergency medical needs. Growth 8 will require new fire stations, new equipment, and the staffmg of those facilities. In 9 general, real estate taxes for growth will pay for the capital and staffing needs. However, 10 one of the highest incidents of calls to the fire department are for fire and emergency 11 12 medical calls associated with construction of a new facility. Despite the fact of this high 13 usage, there is no increase in the property taxes sufficient to pay for capital and staffing. 14 The new construction has an impact for which there is no funding, and so the City was 15 trying to cover the gap between the point in time when the call for services would 16 commence and the point at which the property hit the property tax rolls. The City 17 determined that this time period is generally three years. The fire mitigation fee is based 18 19 on the number of square feet of a commercial establishment divided into the total square 20 footage of such planned new development. This number is then multiplied by the capital 21 and staffing costs for the three year period of time. Again, the calculations are roughly 22 proportional to the impacts. �3 IV. CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons stated hereina.ove the appeal should be denied. 25 26 27 28 WARREN BA 1' 1 ER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 8 DEAN&FONTES, S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I00 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255-5474 1 DATED this q day of March, 2000. 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 WARREN, BARBER, DEAN& 4 FONES, P.S. 5 6 awrence J. Warren, #5853 7 3.29:24:as. Attorney for City of enton 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WARREN BARBER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - 9 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I00 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON.WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 0 • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. R100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY pF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ADOPTING A TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has the authority to. require that transportation impacts be mitigated under SEPA; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires that the City of i Renton adopt a Comprehensive Plan, including a Transportation Element, by December 31, 1994; WHEREAS, this Transportation Element must include certain sub-elements including Arterial, Transit, Non-Motorized, HOV, Freight, a LOS policy, a Mi.igation policy, and a Concurrency policy; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton adopted an Interim Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan on December 20, 1993, as a working document; and WHEREAS, the working document has been updated to provide additional details for the mitigation sub-element; and WHEREAS, this mitigation sub-element is consistent with the City' s , SEPA policy, the Growth Management Act, county-wide policies, Renton Draft Comprehensive Plan, the regional 2020 Vision, the City' s Commute (Trip Reduction. program, and ISTEA programs; and WHEREAS, the mitigation flees of the mitigation sub-element of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan are based on the completion of certain facilities under previous mitigation programs; 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3100 ~ NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I . The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . SECTION II. The City adopts the Transportation Element including the mitigation sub-element under the City' s SEPA authority as a document that meets both SEPA and Growth Management parameters . SECTION III . The City adopts a traffic mitigation fee of $75 . 00 per vehicle trip as calculated by the methodology from the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document dated August 1994 and supplemented December 1994 . This fee applies to all new development that is subject to SEPA review. This fee shall not relieve the new development from providing site specific mitigation required to serve the property. SECTION IV. The traffic mitigation fee will be readopted as a fee under the Growth Management Act and reviewed periodically. . thereafter. ' When readopted the legislation will include such topics as credits, donations and other factors to be considered to diminish this fee. The readopted legislation will also make ' provisions for annual increases in the fee to adjust for inflation and any transportation plan changes required; to meet Renton' s LOS Policy. SECTION V. The City Council directs the staff and administration to utilize this 'policy as guidance in mitigating the environmental effects of new development. " However, should any applicant refuse to avail itself of the Traffic Mitigation Fee 2 ESOLUTIO NO. 3100 Policy, then the City staff an administration shall independently analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed development on the traffic facilities of the City. The City staff may require the applicant to prepare studies for the City to assist it in such independent analysis . Mitigation would then be imposed on the basis of the independent analysis . Likewise, should the staff reviewing a project determine that there are specific attributes of the project that make this traffic mitigation policy inadequate or unworkable, then the staff is authorized to require additional studies and/or environmental review and to impose traffic mitigation outside the scope of this policy. SECTION VI . The administrative staff is also authorized and directed to apply the trip mitigation fee in an equitable manner, to negotiate fees under this policy in a manner that utilizes sound engineering and legal principles, and to coordinate and cooperate with developers and property owners to utilize sound planning and engineering practices which reduce daily trips and thereby reduce the need for transportation mitigation. SECTION VII. : The City rescinds the previous Transportation Benefit Zone (TBZ ) mitigation ordinances, but no refunds of those fees are proposed as those fees are or soon will be fully committed or expended. SECTION VIII. For those developments that produce a much. higher than average sales tax revenue to the City, or will provide a high number of well paying jobs, the staff will request authorization from the City Council to negotiate an equitable adjustment in the transportation mitigation fee, which equitable 3 .ESOLUTION NO. 3100 `- by the City Council . It is understood that the City Council will have to set aside a portion of the tax revenue from the project or find other funds within the municipal budget to make up the funds lost through the equitable adjustment. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 19th day of December 1994 . Marilyn 40 ersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 19th day of December , 1994 . (atfrio Richard M. Stredicke, Mayor pro tem Approved as to form: Law nce J. Warr , City Attorney RES.414 : 12/13/94 . 4 • &to • CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE SUPPORT DOCUMENT Prepared by: Transportation Systems Division Me Wilson, Director Sandra Meyer, Transportation Planning Manager Bob Mahn,hn, Project Manager Steve Rolle! Transportation Engineer August, 1994 Supplemented December 5, 1994 This document is printed on 50%post-consumer waste recycled paper. TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE SUPPORT DOCUMENT • Table of Contents Intro duction 1 Transportation Plan Cost 1 Funding Requirements 2 Future Development Trip Generation 3 Mitigation Trip Rate Fee• 3 Methodology for Project Level Trip Generation (added December 5, 1994) 7 Appendix A: 20-Year Transportation Plan -Project and Program List and Costs • 10 Appendix B: Trip Generation Methodology 15 • TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE SUPPORT DOCUMENT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1 The City of Renton has adopted a new transportation mitigation policy as part of the Interim Transportation Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Resolution No. 3027, 1993), and further refined in tl}e Draft Final.Transportation Element. This mitigation policy serjves.as the framework for a city-wide transportation mitigation payment system, which when adopted by;the City Council, will replace existing Transportation Benefit Zones (TBZs) mitigation assessment programs. The new transportation mitigation program includes the assessment of a mitigation fee as future development's fair share contribution towards ensuring that the cumulative impacts of new development can be mitigated. In addition to this fee, the City of Renton may require site-specific improvements to mitigate on-site and ad agent transportation facility impacts from new development. The new development mitigation fair hare cost has been determined based on a 20-year city-wide 1 transportation improvement program, development's fair share cost of the 20-year transportation J program, and the city-wide total daily ehicle trip increase forecasted from future development. The vehicle trip rate fee resulting from this process multiplied by the total daily vehicle trip increase generated by a specific development project determines the developer mitigation fee for that development. I 1 The purpose of this Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document is to explain the methodology behind the development of the developer mitigation vehicle trip rate fee. ITRANSPORTATION PLAN COST 1 The City has developed a 20-year (1 95-2015) transportation plan, detailed in the Draft Final ! Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes arterial, HOV, transit, and non- motorized components. This plan is deigned to accommodate anticipated � P growth in the city with no decrease from the present level of service�(LOS). Renton uses a non-traditional LOS measure based on the system wide performance of all vehi le modes. Renton's LOS program is detailed in the City of Renton Level of Service Document prepared by the Transportation Systems Division. The Planning cost estimate for the 20-year transportation'plan is $134 million. The costs of the various components of the plan are s arized in Table 1, below. The costs for the arterial, HOV and non-motorized components representRenton's costs ('including Renton's share of responsibility under joint projects with WSDOT and other local jurisdictions) in 1994 dollars. The transit cost includes only local match for Renton's 'local feeder system improvements, intermodal stations, park and ride lots, signal priority and other transit amenities. The annual program costs support and supplement the other components and are a necessary element of maintaining level of service standards. II • 1 • TABLE 1 RENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES Arterial Plan: _ $ 45,669,000 HOV Plan: _ $ 33,090,000 Transit Plan: _ $ 25,000,000 Non-motorized Plan: _ $ 4,641,000 Annual Programs: _ $ 25.600,000 Total 20-Year Cost = $ 134,000,000 A list of the projects and programs in the 20-year transportation plan and planning level cost estimates for each are provided in Appendix A of this document. A listing of 20-year proposed transit improvements and planning level costs is provided in the Renton Transit Plan Support Document. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Sources of revenue for funding the 20-year transportation plan are as follows: Annual 20-Year Total ♦ Gas &Vehicle tax $0.67 million $13.4 million ♦ Grant funding $ .57 million $71.4 million ♦ Business license fee $1.89 million $37.8 million Total $6.13 million $122.6 million (Funding Required $61.7 million $134 million) • Funding source assumptions are based upon the City of Renton's 1994-1999 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). _It is assumed that the gas tax and vehicle tax will continue at the current level of$0.67 million per year. It was also assumed that current level of grant funding ($3.57 million per year) will be maintained. Business license fee revenue of$1.89 million per year assumes: that the current level of$1.80 million per year will continue; that inflation at 4% per year over the next twenty years will devalue the $1.80 million per year to $1.40 million per year; and, that the employment increase forecasted for the City of Renton over the next twenty years will adjust the $1.40 million per year upward to an average of$1.89 million per year. Developer mitigation will be expected to make up the difference between the required funds, $134 million, and funds supplied by the above sources, $122.6 million. Therefore, developer mitigation's - share is expected-to be $11.4 million. Thee total Transportation Finance Program is: • Annual 20-Year Total % Share ♦ Gas &Vehicle tax $0.67 million $13.4 million • Grant fundin 10 q g $3�.57 million $71.4 million 53% % • Business license fee $1.89 million $37.8 million 28% 1 • Mitigation $0L57 million $11.4 million 9% - Total $6.7 million $134.0 million 100% I . Less emphasis on developer mitigation recognizes that this source of s. The irregularitytransportation funding is not as predictable (or stable) as other source l of development projects and thus uneven flow of mitigation revenue contribute to the unpredictability of developer mitigation. (Stable sources of transportation funding are a requirement of the Growth (GMA). Management Act G g MA). FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION Establishing a vehicle trip rate fee that will yield $11.4 million in developer mitigation is based on the number of vehicle trips generated between1990 and 2010 by new development within the Renton city limits. To determine the trip generation expected over this 20-year period, travel demand analysis was conducted using equations based on Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) trip generation parameters. These same parameters were used in the City of Renton's travel demand forecast model. The increase in trip generation between 1990 and 2010 was completed first for person trips and then i — converted to vehicle trips for mitigation purposes. Table 2 summarizes the increase in vehicle trips attributable to new development city-wide between 1990 and 2010. TABLE 2 2010 '' 1990 Total Increase Average Vehicle Total Increase Person Trips Person Trips Person Trips Occupancy Vehicle Trips 832,697 548,499 * 284,198 1.29 220,300 ** * Includes activity density factor adjustment. See Appendix B for discussion. ** Rounded to nearest hundred. Table 2 shows that 220,300 new vehicle trips are forecast for all development between 1990 and the year 2010. For further information on the methodology used in forecasting the number of vehicle trips generated by new development see Appendix B of this document. MITIGATION TRIP RATE FEE Up to this point, development's share of the cost of the City of Renton's 20-year transportation plan to mitigate future developments traffic impacts (in addition to site-specific mitigation) has been identified as $11.4 million. Also, the total increase in daily vehicle trips generated from future development by 3 2010 has been estimated to be 220,300. The next step is to establish a mitigation trip rate fee per daily- vehicle trip. However, before establishing the vehicle trip rate, it is appropriate to recognize local efforts to encourage economic development in the City of Renton. Discussions with the Mayor's Economic Development Coordinator have focused n the need for flexibility in the mitigation trip rate fee to allow for possible credits as an incentive to retail development city-wide. To address the issue of development incentives, four scenarios were developed for providing the $11.4 million in developer mitigation required over twenty years. Three of these scenarios examine the impact on providing the $11.4 million resulting from a reduction in the vehicle trip rate fee as incentive for retail development. The four scenarios are described as follows: OPTION 1: City-wide trip rate applied to, all new development. Estimated 20-year vehicle trip increase = 220,300 ** ** Based on 2010 person trip increase forecasts for City of Renton and average vehicle occupancy of 1.29. See Appendix B for further details. Therefore, City-wide Trip Rate = $11,400, = $52 per vehicle trip 220,300 vehicle trips OPTION 2: City-wide trip rate. Separat trip,rate for CBD core area and city-wide retail . development. Assume CBD core area and Retail Trip Rate = $10 per vehicle trip (a$42 reduction from the$52 trip rate in Option 1) . Estimated CBD Core Area and Retail Vehicle Trip increase = 129,000 ** Estimated Office/Manufacturing/Educational/Residential vehicle trip rate increase = 91,300 ** ** Rounded to the nearest hundred. See Appendix B, Table 1 and Table 3 for information on the determination of these vehicle trip estimates. Therefore, . Office/Manufacturing/Educational/Residential Trip Rate = $11,400,000 - (129,000 x $10/vehicle trip) = $110 per vehicle trip 91,300 vehicle trips 4 • O IoN 3: City-wide trip rate. Sep ate trip rate for CBD core area and city-wide retail development. Assume CBD core area and Retail Trip Rate = $25 per vehicle trip (a $27 reduction from the$52 trip rate in Option 1) Therefore, Office/Manufacturing/Educational/Residential Trip Rate = $11,400,000 - (129,000 x $25/vehicle trip) 91,300 vehicle trips = $90 per vehicle trip • • OrrloN 4: City-wide trip rate. Separate trip rate for CBD core area and city-wide retail development. Assume CBD core area and Retail Trip Rate = $35 per vehicle trip-(a $17 reduction from the $52 trip rate in Option 1) Therefore, Office/Manufacturing/Educational/Residential Trip Rate = $11,400,000 - (129,,040 x $35/vehicle trip) 91,300 vehicle trips = $75 per vehicle trip 1 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF TRIP RATE OPTIONS • OPTIONS TRIP RA Option 1: City-wide trip rate $ 52 per vehicle trip 1 Option 2: City-wide trip rate • CBD Core Area&Retail develo went $10 per vehicle trip ♦ Office, Manufacturing, Educational, Residential development $110 per vehicle trip Option 3: City-wide trip rate • • CBD Core Area &Retail development $25 per vehicle trip ♦ Office, Manufacturing, Educational, Residential development $90 per vehicle trip Option 4: City-wide trip rate ♦ CBD Core Area&Retail development $35 per vehicle trip • ' Office, Manufacturing, Educational, Residential development $75 per vehicle trip 1 In 'reviewing the four trip rate options with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, representatives of the downtown business community, and the City Council Transportation Committee, there was a favorable response for a mitigation trip rate fee that provided the opportunity for credits for(development incentives. 5 • • Another factor' that must be considered in establishing the mitigation fee per vehicle trip is the residential development exemption from mitigation allowed under SEPA rules. Currently a single family or multi-family residential development of five units or less in the City of Renton does not trigger mitigation requirements. Whether the City will continue with this residential development threshold or possibly increase this threshold (provisions under SEPA allow raising the residential development threshold) over the next 20 years is difficult to predict. Also, the impact this might have on the total increase in daily vehicle trips and on the developer mitigation funds required over the next 20 years is difficult to predict. Therefore, it is assumed that the mitigation per vehicle trip rate will need to allow for the impact from the residential development exemption threshold. With,the understanding that there is a need: to recognize the support from community representatives and the City Council Transportation Committee for credits to encourage development; and, to allow for future possible exemptions from mitigation requirements related to residential development, a fifth mitigation trip rate scenario, Option 5, was developed. Option 5: City-wide trip rate • Allow for residential development exemptions from $75 per vehicle trip for all mitigation new development 1 Allow for credits to encourage development Recommended Trip Rate Fee: Establishing a city-wide transportation mitigation trip rate fee of $75 per vehicle trip generated by all new development is recommended for adoption by the City of Renton. Also ,as part of this recommendation a development may qualify for reduction of the $75 per vehicle trip fee through credits for development incentives, construction of needed Renton transportation program improvements through public/private partnerships, and transportation demand management programs. Specific credits and the amount of reduction in the mitigation trip rate fee that could result from'such credits will be determined on a case-by-case basis during the development permitting process. It is also recommended that the$75 trip rate be evaluated over time to ensure that this fee: encourages economic development;. and, provides the developer mitigation share of the funding necessary to implement the transportation program identified to maintain the City of Renton's transportation level of service. 6 f METHODOLOGY FOR PROJECT LEVEL TRIP GENERATION 1 (Added December 5, 1994) The mitigation system developed by th City is compatible with trip generation procedures established by ;ITE. In determining the mitigatio rate for a new development, trip generation according to ITE standard procedures should be used. The mitigation fee of$75 per trip will be applied to the number of trips generated. Additionally, there will be opportunity to receive a lower mitigation trip fee through credits provided for considerations such as programs designed to reduce SOV travel. i Answers to Common Questions Q: 1 What trip generation rate should be used? A: 1 City staff will work with developers to determine trip generation for a given development. ITE trip generation procedures and rates should be used. Substitution of alternative rates may be warranted in special circumstances. •In these cases, City Staff will work with developers to determine appropriate rates. Final determination of the appro riate use of proposed alternative survey data will be made by the Plan Review Supervisor (or designee . Q: ; When I look at the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 1991 under specific categories of development, several independent variables are listed. Which one should I use? A: In the manual, there is a section that discusses the choice of independent variables (p.I-1 In general, you should choose the independent variable that is the most significant indicator of future trip generation. 1 1 I. Q: How is the basis for use of ITE rates consistent with the PSRC/City of Renton rates? A: 1 The City of Renton is required to coordinate with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO), and to conduct transportation planning using PSRC (regional) trip generation rates. PSRC trip generation is based upon ITE rates and local survey data. The rates used to determine the citywide mitigation fee ($75) are based upon PSRC rates generated for broad categories of developments which are used for long range planning purposes. These rates are based upon ITE rates and la blend of local census data. Specific trip generation rates, such as those produced by ITE, show the number of trips that a specific type of development is responsible for based on known information at the project level, such as the number of dwelling units or the square footage (in 1000's) of development. transportation planning level of analysis, ill hich considers manyof 1 p (At the. long range level information is not known.) acres and at a time, specific project 7 ' J Q:, Why do 1TE trip rates.vary as compared,to the rates used by regional planning agencies? A: This is a similar, more detailed answer than given above. ITE rates are for specific types of developments, while the model rates used for long term planning by the City are for general categories of development. For example, a hardware store may generate 53 trips per employee, while a hotel may only generate 14 (these are example rates only). However, when planning for future growth, the City assumes 23 trips per employee for all retail developments. This number represents an average rate for new development which allows the City to forecast new trips based on the number of new employees expected in the City by a given time. Q: I Are all developments required to Ray a transportation mitigation fee? A: , No. Only those developments that) fall under SEPA law. Q: ' How can I apply for credits to reduce my mitigation fee? A: Credits will be considered by the Mitigation Credit Review Committee. This Committee is made up of the following positions: Plan Review Supervisor (or designee), Program Development Coordinator (Transportation Division designee), and Economic Development Coordinator (Executive Division designee). Q: What types of developments fall into the categories:used by the City in the Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document to forecast new trips? A: For mitigation development purposes, the City of Renton classifies developments by general land use type. Five land use classifications are utilized: Household, Retail, Office, Educational and Manufacturing. The following table shows how these general land use types correspond to specific development types: • • • • . Table 1: Land Use Categories and Typical Developments - j I 1 PSRC Model Typical ITE Daily Trip General Types Examples 11 Category Generation Rates 1 (tripe/1 000 ft2) (tripa/emplLx) Hardware Store,Nursery, Shopping Center, i Retail.. •30-200+ 12-50 Retail, Service, Restaurant, Car Wash, Auto Repair, Service Recreation Station, Supermarket, Convenience Market, Apparel Store,Furniture Store,Video Rental Store,Hotel, Church/Synagogue,Day Care Center,Bank 'i Manufacturing 0.7-7 2-3 •• Manufacturing, Light Industry,Heavy Industry, Industrial Park, Industrial Manufacturing,High-Tech Industrial, }F Warehouse 1 , _ Office 6-35 5-g Office, Office Building,Medical Office, Government Medical, Office,Post Office, Civic Center,Business Government Park,Research Center. -- Household (trips/dwelling • 5-10 House,Apartment,Duplex,Condo,Townhouse. __ (ice ) . Education 1-3 9-17 University,High School, School. era Note: Other independent variables may be more appropriate in some cases. These ranges are examples only. - '0 . i - 1 il . I _ APPENDIX 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECT A AND PROGRAM LIST AND COSTS -I 1 . id • • • 11 10 Mgt APPENDIX A 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN ARTERIAL PLAN PROJECT LIST AND PLANNING LEVEL PROJECT COSTS Project Location Project Limits Project Description Renton Cost By 2010 Park Avenue North Bronson Way to North 10 h Street Roadway Widening Funded Houser Way Relocation Sunset Boulevard to North 8h Street New Arterial $ 2,117,0 Sunset Boulevard/Houser Way Connection - - - Grade Separation 1,143,0w CBD Transportation and Streetscape • Bronson Way South Second Street to Sunset Boulevard Roadway Widening 5,000,000 • Main Avenue South Grady Way to South Second Street Roadway Widening 5,500,000 • South Second Street Rainier Avenue to MainAvenue_South -Revise-Street Network - 5,000,000 .—CBD`Streetscape - - - Street Improvements 2,500,000 Lake Washington Boulevard/May Creek Bridge - - - Bridge Replacement 452,000 Monster Road Bridge - - Bridge Replacement 1,390,000 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Southwest 16th Street to Southwest 27th Street New Arterial 6,600,000 Northeast Third Street Sunset Boulevard to Monterey Drive Northeast Roadway Widening 698,000 South Grady Way Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road Roadway Improvements 500,000 Lind Avenue Southwest Southwest 16th Street to Southwest 43rd Street Roadway Widening 3,000,000 Southwest 16th Street Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Lind Avenue Roadway Widening 1,000,000 • Southwest 2010 to 2015 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 31st Street New Arterial 6,750,000 Puget Drive Southeast Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast Roadway Widening 1,010,000 SR167/East Valley Road Connection - - - New Off-Ramp 639,000(a) Duvall Avenue Northeast Sunset Boulevard to North City Limits " ' Roadway Widening 2.400.000 TOTAL COST $ 45,699,000 ' (a) Total Planning Level Cost = $3,512,000 (Renton = $639,000; proposed funding from WSDOT and Kent = $2,873,000) • • APPENDIX A 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN • HOV PLAN PROJECT LIST AND PLANNING LEVEL PROJECT COSTS Project Location Project Limits Project Description Renton Cost I-405Benson Road or SR 515 - - - Full HOV Only Interchange $ 8,000,000 (a) SR 167/Southwest 271h Street -- - Full HOV Only Interchange 5,000,0t '1 SR 169 (Maple Valley Highway) Sunset Boulevard to East City Limits HOV lanes; queue jumps 4,000,000 (0 Sunset Boulevard Bronson Way to I-405 HOV lanes 690,000 Park Drive North I-405 to Sunset Boulevard • HOV lanes;-queue jumps 3,000,000 Northeast 3rd Street / Northeast 4'h Street Sunset Boulevard to Monroe Avenue_Northeast HOV lanes; queue jumps 5,400,000 _ Rainier Avenue/Airport Way/Logan Avenue North SR 900 to North-all-Street Intersection queue jumps 2,000,000 Southwest 27th Street "SR 167 toOakesdale Avenue Southwest HOV lanes 2,000,000 SR 515 or Benson I-405 interchange to South Puget Drive HOV queue jump 500,000 South-43rd/Carr Road/Southeast 176th/Southeast SR 167 to 1401 Avenue Southeast HOV lanes; queue jumps 2,500,000 (d) •. Petrovitsky TOTAL COST $ 33,090,0('" (a) Total Planning Level Cost = $12,000,000 (Renton = $8,000,000; proposed funding from WSDOT = $4,000,000) (e) Total Planning Level Cost = $ 8,000,000 (Renton = $5,000,000; proposed funding from WSDOT = $3,000,000) (c) Total Planning Level Cost = $ 6,000,000 (Renton = $4,000,000; proposed funding from WSDOT = $2,000,000) (d) Total Planning Level Cost = $ 5,000,000 (Renton = $2,500,000; proposed funding from King County = $2,500,000) 12 AMIN NMI APPENDIX A 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN • NON-MOTORIZED PROGRAM PROJECT LIST AND PLANNING LEVEL PROJECT COSTS Project Location Project Limits Project Description Renton Cost Lake Washington Boulevard Coulon Park South Entrance to North 44th Street Bike/Ped Improvements $ 930,000 Houser Way North a Street to Park Avenue North overcrossing Bike/Ped Path - 300 000— Garden Avenue North Bronson Way to North 6th Street _ Bike/P-ed-Path;-Bike Lanes 150,000 Other Locations To_etermined — — To be determined 3,261.000 --- TOTAL COST $ 4,641,000 I ' APPENDIX A RENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN ANNUAL FROG' • AND ESTIMATED FUNDING NEEDS Program Estimated Annual ' Estimated 20-Year Funding Funding Street Overlay $ 380,000 $ 7,600,000 Roadway Reconstruction 100,000 2,000,000 Transportation Demand Managemen 40,000 800,000 Walkway Program 70,000 1,400,000 Transit Program 30,000 600,000 Arterial HOV Program 30,000 600,000 Bridge Inspection and Repair• 100,000 2,000,000 Traffic Maintenance/Operations/Safety • Traffic Signal Improvement 50,000 1,000,000 • Traffic Signal Loop Replacement 20,000 400,000 ♦. Traffic Sign Replacement 20,000 400,000 • Light Pole Replacement 20,000 400,000 ' ♦ Sidewalk Replacement 10,000 200,000 • Traffic Safety Program 70,000 1,400,000 • Traffic Systems Efficiency 50,000 1,000,000 ♦ Railroad Crossing Safety Program 30,000 600,000 Arterial Circulation Program 150,000 3,000,000 Project Development/Predesign 90,000 1,800,000 WSDOT Coordination 10,000 200,000 Mitigation/Concurrency (TBZ Planning) 10.000 200.000 TOTAL $ 1,280,000 $ 25,600,000 14 1- APPENDIX B TRIP GENERATION METHODOLOGY • 1 i • • • • • is- . • • 11 15 • Appendix B 1 - Tri Generation Methodology The mitigation fee program is based on establishingtrip a tr p rate that will yield $11.4 million in required mitigation funding based on the number of trips generated by development occurring between 1990 and 2010. To determine the trip generation expected over this 20 year period, travel demand analysis was conducted using equations based on the PSRC's trip generation model parameters. These are the same parameters used in the City's travel demand models. For mitigation purposes, trip generation was completed by land use category, rather than by trip type, which is most common. Figure 1 summarizes the coefficients used to en g erate trips for each land use type. Five categories of land use were considered: Retail, manufacturing/industrial, office, education, and residential. Trip generation estimates were conducted for these uses. Total person trips are calculated as follows: • Residential = HH Productions + HH University Productions + HH School Productions +HHAttractions • • Retail =Retail Productions +Retail Attractions • • • Office= Office productions + Office Attractions • Manufacturing=Manufacturing Productions +Manufacturing Attractions • Education=Education Productions +Education Attractions • Residential. Manufacturing. & Education Trips To determine the number of trips ge ierated by new development, the travel demand equations were applied using 1990 and 2010 input data. To determine trips attributed to new residential, manufacturing, and educational developments, trip generation was calculated for 1990 and 2010. The difference in trips between these two years represents the increase in trips due to new development. This approach is valid for all of the land uses listed above except for retail and office. Retail & s Office Trips P For retail and office trips, changing trip rates due to increased land use activity .(denser development) requires using a different method than that described above. The problem is that as land use densities intensify, trip rates decrease (there is less demand/employee for travel by vehicle). Therefore, existing developments create fewer trips at a future date than they did 1 ! previously. The intensity of density is measured in modeling by an activity density factor (AD). If the AD changes between the years measured (1990 and 2010), then the difference in trips between the two years will not fully measure trips due to new development. • r Figure 1: Summary of Coefficients for Determining Pr ductions and Attractions by Land Use Type PRODUCTIONS HH produced trips=1.934•(POP)+2.241'(HSD)-2.086'(LIH)-0.866•(LMIH)+0.274'(UMIH)+1 223•(UIH) , HB Univ.=0.220•(HSD) HB School=0.368'(POP-GRP)-0.327(HSD) NON-HOME BASED+COMMERCIAL PRODUCTIONS: HH prod=0.689•(SFH)+0.262*(MkH) Retail Activity Density=I(low) Retail attracted trips=6.107'(RET) Activity Density=2(med, Retail attracted trips=3.726'(RET) Activity Density=3(high) Retail attracted trips=1.378 •(RET) Office Activity Density=1(low)' Office attracted trips=1.971'(OFF) Activity Density=2(med, Office attracted trips=1.178• (OFF) Activity Density=3(high) Office attracted trips=0.744• (OFF) Manufacturing=0.413•(MAN) Education=1.102'(EDU) ATTRACTIONS • HH attracted trips=2.282'(SFH)+0.88•(MFH) Retail Activity Density=I(low) Retail attracted trips=17.022'(RET) • Activity Density=2(med) Retail attracted trips=8.274•(RET) Activity Density=3(high) Retail attracted trips=4.17•(RET) Office Activity Density=1(low) Office attracted trips=6.34•(OFF) Activity Density=2(med) Office attracted trips=3.625*(OFF) Activity Density=3(high) Office attracted trips=2.67•(OFF) Manufacturing attracted trips=1.76•(MAN) Education attracted trips=26.83'(EDU) BEY (model attribute) POP=Population mol HSD=Households • mo2+mo3+mo4+mo5 LIH=Lower Income Households mo2 LMIH=Lower/Middle Income Households mo3 UMIH=Upper/Middle Income Households mo4 UIH=Upper Income Households mo5 SFH=Single Family Households (1-(mo7/100)•(mo2+mo3+mo4+mo5) MFH=Multi-Family Households (mo7/100)•(mo2+mo3+mo4+mo5) Activity Density Factor md6 RET=Retail Employment mdl OFF=Office Employment md2 MAN=Manufacturing Employment md3 EDU=Education Employment md4 GRP=Group Quarters mo6 • • Since a facility in 2010 generates fewer modeled trips than the same facility in 1990 (due to an change in the activity density facto i from 1 to 2), simply measuring the increase in total trips between 1990 and 2010 will not provided an accurate assessment of trips generated by new developments. • Figure 2: The Effects of Changing Activity Density Factors on Trip Generation } 1990 Generated Trips 201/0 Generated Trips AD Factor= 1 AD Factor=2 _ Trips generated by -eee .x.x.. ;•;•••-•-•••-•-•-•-•-•-•-•- facilities existing prior. '-'" to 1990. %�:�:�:�:�: �: �:•: �: Trips generated by facilities developed 2,800 1990-2010. 3,000 AD Adjustment r T 1,500 Actual Trips due to ' A trips= 1300 if the NEW development change in AD factor is not considered • Consider the following example, which is also illustrated in Figure 2: Suppose the following information is known: 1. A zone (AD= 1) generates 3,000 daily retail trips in 1990. • 2. New development in that zone results in 1,500 new daily retail trips by 2010. , 3. This zone has become more dense and is modeled as an AD=2 in 2010. 4. The existing 1990 developments generated 2,800 trips (rather than 3,000) in 2010 due to the change in AD from 1 to 2. The total trips in 2010 would then be 4,300 (1,500 new+ 2,800 existing). If one looked only at the 1990 and 2010 trio generation (and did not consider the change in AD), it would appear that only 1,300 additional trips are attributable to new development (4,300 - 3,000). The actual number of trips generated by new development is 1,500 of course (see number 2 above). The total numl ber of new trips generated was masked by the decrease • in existing trips due to the ch ge in activity density factor. An AD Adjustment, or change in trips generated by exis ing development, occurs between these two years. • New retail and office trips may be generated by a second method._ Trip generation is computed under;2010 conditions, but the increase in employment (2010-1990) is substituted for total 2010 employment. Trip generation will then show directly trips caused by new development. For land uses other than office and retail, this approach yields identical results to the first approach. Trips!attributable to new development are summarized in Table 1. Person trips have been converted to vehicle trips for mitigation purposes. A detailed breakdown of trip generation by microzone is shown in Table 2. The bolumn titled AD Adjustment shows the adjustment for trips from existing 1990 facilities due tb a change in the activity density factor. Person trips as generated by the model and vehicle trips based on an average vehicle occupancy of 1.29 are shown. The vehicle occupancy is a model generated number based on -the predicted 2010 conditions. Table 1: Trips,Person and Vehicle 2010 1990 AD Total Increase Total Increase Adjustment Person Trips .Vehicle Trips (832,697 - 558,765) + 10,266 —I 284,198 220,300* Total Trips (313,047 - 156,851) + 10,266 1 166,462 129,000* Retail&CBD ** I , (519,650 - 401,914) + 0 = 117,736 91,300* Non-CBD ** Manufacturing, Office,Educational, Residential •Assumes A VO of 1.29 (284,1984-1.29=220,309) Rounded to the nearest hundred. *•See Table 3 for determination of retail and CBD pe on trips. Summary of Trip Generation In some cases, the number of trips attri, utable to new development does not equal the difference. in trips between 1990 and 2010. This is due to a change in the intensity of development, which is measured by the activity density factor (AD). By directly modeling the change in trips using change in employment, 284,198 new person trips (220,300 vehicle trips) are forecast between 19901 and 2010. 166,462 (129,000 vehicle trips) of these trips will be retail generated trips or CBD generated trips. .. I • • • Table 2: Increase in total person trips(1990-2010)due to new development (2010 trips-1990 trips)+Loss Due to 4ctivity Density Factor shifts=Increase • Microzone Retail Trips Office Trips i Manufacturing Trips School Trips Residential Trips Total Trips 1 4,603 3,374 187 0 3,595 11,758 2 6,777 2,061 3 0 1,071 9,912 8 0 0 0 0 1,255 1,255 11 347 0 0 381 -27 701 i 12 0 0 0 0 -28 -28 13 0 0 0 0 566 566 14 0 0 0 0 165 165 15 0 0 0 0 209 209 j 16 0 0 0 0 610 610 18 208 141 11 0 151 511 19 1,341 889 67 436 48 2,782 20 416 283 28 0 197 924 21 1,503 1,006 • 76 669 • -62 3,192 22 0 0 0 0 61 61 23 0 0 0 0 -78 -78 24 0 0 0 0 -17 -17 25 0 0 0 0 583 583 26 0 0 0 0 -426 -427 27 5,112 3,416 254 1 -12 8,771 28 2,429 1,621 122 0 -420 3,752 29 0 0 0 0 -430 -430 30 0 0 1 0 -351 -351 31 0 0 1 0 -364 -363 32 0 0 0 4,492 -626 3,866 33 0 .0 3 0 -568 ' -565 34 0 0 0 0 369 • 369 35 2,961 1,970 143 0 -946 4,128 36 15,080 4,430 87 0 4,065 23,662 37 486 141 • 2 0 -300 329 38 717 208 4 355 687 1,971 39 1,180 349 7 0 76 1,611 40 116 33 0 0 82 231 41 0 0 1 0 638 639 42 4,094 1,205 32 0 2,401 7,732 t.43 6,707 1,970 41 0 -2 8,716 44 0 0 I 0 0 • 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 . -141 -141 46 0 0 0 0 -264 -264 47 0 0 0 0 -1,163 -1,163 48 0 0 -1 0 700 699 49 • 0 0 0 0 2,401 2,401 50 0 0 . 0 0 489 489 51 0 0 0 166 968 1,134 ' 52 0 0 0 0 -225 -225 53 0 0 0 0 -1,328. -1,328 I 57 0 0 0 0 230 •230 '58 0 0 0 0 -55 -55 59 0 0 I 0 0 -6 -6 60 0 , 0 0 130 -410 -279 61 0 0 0 0 -230 -230 , 66 0 0 0 494 -385 108 67 0 0 1 0 481 482 68 0 0 0 , 0 766 766 .71 0 4,471 -4 0 5,589 10,056 72 5,019 0 1,176 0 15 6,210 I I • Microzone Retail Trips Office Trips Manufacturing Trips School Trips Residential Trips Total Trips 73 1,596 0 330 0 0 1,926 74 4,094 0 ' 706 0 155 4,955 75 3,469 0 359 0 0 3,828 76 4,279 • 0 1,002 0 0 5,281 ' 77 0 0 4 0 0 4 78 0 50,672 0 0 0 50,672 79 8,303 0 1,150 0 8 9,462 80 8,604 0 -7 0 5 8,602 81 278 0 99 0 8 384 1 82 116 0 30 0 -57 89 83 0 0 31 0 0 31 84 2,290 0 97 0 -2 2,384 85 5,227 0 0 0 • 35 5,262 87 0 4,388 0 0 0 4,388 88 0 0 0 0 -143 -143 89 0 0 0 0 -168 -168 90 0 0 s 1 0 • -237 -236 91 0 0 0 0 532 532 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 122 122 95 0 0 4 0 -140 -136 97 0 0 2 0 0 2 98 3,000 1,811 1 320 2,613 7,745 99 432 96 1 0 26 555 100 0 0 0 0 ' 103 103 101 0 0 - 1 30 -18 13 102 ' 0 0 0 0 -211 -211 103 0 0 -18 0 0 -18 104 1,488 898 0 0 1,135 3,521 , 105 1,572 946 -1 0 1,154 3,671 ' 106 1,176 711 0 0 961 2,848 107 1,836 ' 1,105 0 0 1,392 4,333 108 1,524 917 0 263 1,319 4,024 109 420 255 0 0 378 - 1,053 110 936 562 0 0 794 , 2,292 111 1,032 624 2 0 910 2,568 112 1,056 639 0 32 908 2,636 i 113 876 533 0 0 992 2,402 114 1,068 644 ' 0 0 1,204 2,916 115 936 562 2 2 1,024 2,526 116 984 591 0 0 1,075 2,650 • 117 1,044 629 10 • 0 1,187 2,869 118 1,020 620 0 .0 911 2,550 119 828 • 500 0 0 725 2,053 120 2,604 1,571 0 0 2,555 6,730 121 1,248 749 0 0 1,063 3,060 122 1,176 706 0 0 1,321 3,203 123 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 124 0 0 0 0 -106 -106 125 0 0 0 0 -157 -157 126 ' 0 0 0 0 -77 -77 , 127 0 0 0 0 ' -45 -45 ' 128 ' , 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 -5 0 -425 -430 130 0 0 0 428 -353 75 131 0 0 1 0 -350 -350 132 0 0 -21 0 -2 -23 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , Microzone Retail Trips Office Trips Manufacturing Trips School Trips Residential Trips Total Trips 134 0 0 -460- 0 -334 -794 135 0 0 -611 0 -8 -619 ' 136 0 0 -606 0 0 -606 137 0 0 6 0 - 0 6 138 0 0 0 0 942 942 139 0 0 1 0 -80 -79 140 0 0 0 0 0 -591 -590 141 0 0 6 0 -329 -324 142 1,318 715 0 • 0 543 2,576 173 2,590 0 393 0 0 2,984 -174 0 0 22 0 0 22 175 0 0 30 0 0 30 176 439 0 12 0 0 451 177 0 0 5 0 ' 6 10 178 2,775 0 5 0 0 2,781 179 0 0 -81 0 0 -81 . 180 0 0 8 0 -376 -368 181 0 0 0 0 6 6 TOTALS 130,730 99,010, I 4,754 8,200 41,504 284,198 •For microzone locations see figure 3 I , Table 3: Increase in total person trips fol[CBD and Retail Development. , Zone Retail Trips Office Trips Ice Trips School Trips Residential Trips Total Trips 1 38,417 50,672 4,751 0 -179 93,661 2 10,662 4,388 620 0 -58 15,613 3 3,060 1,844 -18 30 2,060 6,977 4 • 15,516 9,193 16 297 14,402 39,424 5 7,680 4,630 2 320 6,957 19,588 6 0 0 -5 428 -1,515 -1,091 7 0 0 -1,690 0 -344 . -2,034 1 8 0 0 5 0 109 113 10 0 4,471 -3 790 7,556 12,814 -11 - 55,394 23,811 1,077 6,335 12,516 99,133 I • Total 130,730 99,010 I 4,754 8,200 41,504 284,198 ' CBD 23,047 13,896 15 457 21,364 ' 58,779 9 CBD+Retail=130,730 total Retail trips+58,779 total CBD trips-23,047 Retail trips occurring in the CBD=166,462 person trips. •For CBD and zone locations see figures 4 and S i • c:\sAmodeMtideatilnewarowtlexolain.doc I .. II . • I I tit: - r. ; '`.`I lei .4 j` ' 4.11: : _ :‘ i - • . . . , ,0/' • k.A.011. lj -1 . ' ''. ' ''' •- ; - f l lia!i I f • a ilirg testi 4, AI ',,', '- , -3.i f :11.',,t'.„.; Aii'Li* - 11111101 - ,__ .L4Al MIN lisirm.,. ,,,T. 411-1" ti ''',i'i• 1 li•i,. ! • r,,,,„7,,1' ..., _ lifir , ,. '• . 11Ik',I'_:•". ''.:i Ff'"4 i.�ci r� .I , r i� .I. li11'< tv ►\ • -- - �� ',`)� _, . - I;'.,�, ,.., L�.,... .. ,,,,. . ,., ,,,,,„... l fy.�. ' - , _ 'IriI ..,1,,,,. Hz Mill[ , ., ,,i....,„,., ' `N...,,,,,,,,, 1 te..—... -----:>.; , . RI�11�1 t„,,,,,,3,....,..w, _ �'r I :.. , ...,...,.., .,,‘,,,,..,,,,, ,.. . .._, „, 4. „......„j..,.... , ,L ,..._ i pi , ,_ , , . --0°1 i milt fig\_ Idol% I I,,1 1•!.1.,.ti � gr{}-u. !i`/ 135 1 -I :IC 1!/ ire.. is •`��r1- ,i 1 tir. L\ I I ��'.. - S. Ili •Vito, -. 1�11. - 1541 ,� 1 1 ".11 n. cit.S -t : 1111f,,,m , , ; \1 .� '��'��17 �,�T 1 ) I`', 33 IU il i I :61• Ilf.,, : ! •,: III I. , ‘,, ,,.._ ....a..i I I I•AI le,. 4 , ._. •••••,,-.1.1. I ' fillittiOrili 410,Pr . �1 4.. ��;r�►`L��.X1.I}��-1 4IA' '�'—�'%�/ "`• i ir�:rjl 11. 1 Ilk ris`i'F �f�Ili =Yo'oa;�i,►sil'II�tT�ditop \ - 42 ,:�� 1:IEiU ,' ' Q,�iiri it 'I. w �k - al�lI 1 t f =1j1 i ' 11---'. Sittig___Lov( .. 1 Ili .i.,,i,. ,,,,, �� �i' - toz �� � � it 19:7 1°4 ' Al°11114- 'r __ 1W EL, `--fir.. III: • 194 IF 1 79 Mill • F •. 80 i -IC' •194.‘ . Ili I -1- r, ipi 72 179 i - / �;� 1r1. I li � ;,;t: • 145 • .. 77-...tiou,smitir •• :.a. -i • B--1. • . Al•e1.1.. - i: Id° ) ' kir I r i ���; • �� figure 3 I 7 ' MN, I , 1 !Si' ` •0_ t, City of Renton • Figure 4 mow. .. ''" _ �_•••• {,1-.._ 0 C.,..........,,c .•—•..3.R1;:•-•*.zr•-e. • '';'2#0,- :•rt"r". I • q . •. ,0 I LLI j • t'..=,;.x•�' ��"'.t , .. .,. 14 .:a.,,,.w. .2,...,..,....., . . r... ; i ; ) . • I O r h�Mt w^.::t•::'•'.:4...m+A:i>T"w`1+ — 4 fa- 4 $it fs. K ,a` ,✓+ I _,-1L it „y acid:;zH<.-..,�� z y xr'', ';`.1.--\ .iK"...•�'„,.:X`✓.:?;?..r O n.,< Noy?oSds • 1 I t.� "f r - .1 7-) - . T, l� r r M zzz G. �,V .: .:.aZx • ; .� ter]. �, _ . 1_ I'll Ham-; �• r .Spa 111 � I _� I - II ►�L'iri► �nm _r_. , :I1 j 7 13 F �: \o `�,'1�i' uMU i/ .1. i.sm ,, . . ,,,,....„::.....". ru. Tr I r ,/ Iiii;01.,-, • --- 410"lk ji . cliit.ii MI —gi 11 :1_.- i- I ; ftnrinnifr- ° wPZ71-41?AI 11.7.41. -1/ al 1.—.1*Ti h.."1-SP ki'''- .. : v 1 • - . N.)4 ',;:i! ' I _lad" ihwa , ! :L, (\ \14r1Wil !II '\ All)NIA _......... ..."";mum.1°.Italia ‘‘.:‘ OA 411111111111101%, o11)7.41 k, a • YI (tea itilAA-ftz 9 411111N rs IL ":41 �— y� is. �� irt_ . ry •-.0,j .a , , A 7 FA • —wain III l / / �- -,• 1 . • , • •• i I. 1 a . %II 1 6 i ..... • ai. I ) r:i City of Rcnton Zone Groups T ....,.„, . 1 ,...... • a P_ iTii_l. I I �j 7��;� 1. Renton Valley C.'-. Z. Black River i:'... �'• li !I 3. Rainier/Grady •f _ 4. Downtown Core _ I,, I LI1 ■ I ; '1 - 5. Noah Downtown `� ' 6. Noah Renton Ruidcatial 7. North Renton Industrial i ar 8. Skyway -%-1 r � ' 10. Southeast Renton 11. Kennydale/Highlands .. , Figure 5 I . 1:\NNN...,),N,NN Lake Washington f. i 1 _-, r I I ��� • 90 , 1 \1\ . 1 I • 137 1J5 136 • I 134 < N 8th St I I I —1= I ► 97 \ 13a j N 6th St _ , Ii t I • •132 128 2 &)---. 1-- . - 14 130 I NI4st o• 71 0 I ,\ . r^^" ° N 3rd St ` � I 13 Nt 21411 5t 1Ny 12d ,..4- Al ;: ij ;o: o. e" rV G . .tit • ... • PRE et. fii. . it 61- • SW 7th St I 'c•``�i•J"q.• s�j,..,•• :.•••• • 0 ` • 101 106 U a tw + ;<_ + Gro vet a •�_ 44"INTO • 102 0 �.�/ 11� City of Renton ` S15 iv er M' Central Business District 167 . • t 7. (CBD) Core Area