Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0104 - CITY OF RENTON - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)l92-0104 200 mill creek avenue south city of renton comprehensive plan sepa ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY ' F RENTON Planning /Building /Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator • September 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Land Use Plan Dear Commentor: Thank you for submitting comments on the City of Renton's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Your comments, along with those received from other agencies and individuals have been catalogued. Any comments pertaining to the Draft EIS will be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement as required by the State Environmental Policy Act. The Final EIS will provide responses to the comments as well, and will evaluate the .City Council's Preferred Land Use Alternative as decided on August 24, 1992. The Final EIS is scheduled for publication in December 1992. In order to implement the Land Use Alternative, the City Council will consider new Areawide Zoning. Areawide zoning will conform to the land use, as required by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.07A). In some cases, existing zoning may change under the Areawide Zoning. In other cases, zoning may remain the same. Draft Areawide Zoning maps which mirror the land use changes will be discussed with the public in October. The City Council has scheduled several neighborhood meetings in order to hear residents and property owner concerns on the Land Use Alternative and Areawide Zoning. A copy of this meeting schedule is attached. If you have comments on proposed Areawide Zoning, but are unable to attend any of the neighborhood meetings, comment sheets will be available after October 13th (3rd Floor, Renton City Hall). The due date for comments on the Areawide Zoning is October 31st, 1992. A final public hearing on the Interim Land Use Alternative, Interim Area -Wide Zoning, and Final EIS will be held in front of the Renton City Council on December 14, 1992 at 7:30 pm. A reminder notice for this meeting will be sent to you in advance. If you have any questions regarding the proposed Land Use Element or the Final Environmental Impact Statement, please feel free to call the Long Range Planning Section for assistance. Planners can be reached by calling 235 -2552. Sincerely, / Mary Lynne Myer, Manager Long Range Planning enc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 RECEIVED OCT 0 21992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON THE INTERIM LAND USE ELEMENT AND AREAWIDE ZONING KENNYDALE Tuesday, October 13, 1992 Open House 6-7 pm Discussion 7 -9 pm Kennydale Elementary School 1700 NE 28th Street EAST RENTON Tuesday, October 20, 1992 Open House 6 -7 pm Discussion 7 -9 pm McKnight Middle School 2600 NE 12th Street SOUTHEAST Thursday, October 22, 1992 Open House 6 -7 pm Discussion 7 -9 pm Nelson Middle School 2403 Jones Avenue South VALLEY Tuesday, October 27, 1992 Open House 4 -5 pm Discussion 5 -7 pm City University 1107 SW Grady Way CENTRAL /WEST HILL Thursday, October 29, 1992 Open House 6 -7 pni Discussion 7 -9 pm Renton High School 400 South 2nd Street Plan to attend your Neighborhood Meeting with the Council, or pick up a comment sheet in the Planning Division (3rd Floor, Renton City Hall) after October 13th. Due date for comments on the Interim Land Use Alternative or Interim Areawide Zoning is October 31, 1992. If you have questions regarding these Neighborhood Meetings, please call the Long Range Planning Section at 235 -2552. RECEIVED OCT 0 21992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor February 21, 1992 Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner Environmental Review Committee Department of Planning/Building/Public Works City of Renton, 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Land Use Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Dear Ms. Myer: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your Draft Environmental Impact statement (DEIS) on the above project. The following is the result of a focused review of your document. 1. We are concerned about the confusion that could possibly be caused by designating properties within the City of Tukwila. The impression is that there is a particular interest or concern regarding the designated property. Where maps show property with Renton designations within the City of Tukwila, please explain in the text or eliminate. 2. The annexation section on page 2 -31 is confusing. In general, where is Renton's growth boundary? How does this compare to the sphere of influence and how do you propose to coordinate potential annexation areas with the County and other cities? We have many questions regarding the list of annexation criteria. Under the alternative 1 scenario, how do you resolve potential conflicts between the policy to annex areas that are economically advantageous and the policy of logical boundary extension? Considering the annexation criteria of alternative 2, how does the City determine environmental, economic and aesthetic advantages of an area? In addition, if you don't plan on annexing an area, how will service and capacity to accommodate these areas ever be available? Would not this criteria be self defeating for any future annexations? Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 : .�........_�.�.............. Can not the criteria of geographic logic and land use compatibility be decided now? Your additional criteria are also nebulous: * The area would create a better job/housing balance within the city. What is the current Renton ratio and what is better? * Service administration would be simplified through annexation. Where would this occur? * Use natural resources at an urban scale of development. Has Renton established urban standards versus rural standards for natural resources? As you can see our comments focus is on the annexation issue. It appears to us that the intent of the Growth Management Act is to provide municipal services to urban areas. As an example, the West Hill neighborhood, should they choose to annex, should have direction as to which municipality could best provide services. Your annexation policies make it difficult to determine the City's position. We look forward to working with Renton on this issue and would like to suggest that we discuss each other's time frames and processes for addressing and resolving annexation area concerns. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, will be the contact person within Tukwila on this issue. He can be reached at 431 -3686. Thank you again for the review opportunity. L. Rick Beeler Director NW 93 LR1s01a1�- J A1■1 0 71992 C.t ur. DEPT. PLANNING PRELIMINARY DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Prepared by: Renton Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Section Planning /Building /Public Works December 16, 1991 Mayor Earl Clymer City Council Toni Nelson, President Robert Edwards Kathy Keolker - Wheeler Nancy L. Mathews Planning Commission Jeffrey Lukins, Chair Glenn Garrett Donald Jacobson Eugene Ledbury Herbert Postlewait ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Richard W. Stredicke Timothy J. Schlitzer Theresa Zimmerman Bill Taylor Patrick D. Texeira Richard Wagner Joan A. Walker Planning /Building /Public Works Administrator Lynn Guttmann Planning Director Kay Shoudy Principal Planner - Long Range Planning Mary Lynne Myer Renton Community Plan Update Staff Rebecca Lind, Senior Planner Michael Kattennann, Senior Planner Jennifer Toth Henning, Senior Planner Allan Johnson, Planner Judy Wright, Secretary Laurie Jackson, Secretary (Part -time) Interns Teri Adams, Intern Lorraine Gonzales, Intern Sam Star, Intern Consultants Amanda Azous, Environmental Engineer Ruth Dight, Planner Margaret Kawasaki, Graphic Artist David Evans and Associates Geo Engineers Jones and Stokes Contributing Staff Jay Covington, Mayor's Assistant; Gail Reed, Airport; John Webley, Sam Chastain, Chris Peragine, Randy Berg, Leslie Betlach, Commuity Services; James Matthew, Fire; Don Erickson, Lenora Blauman, Paul Forsander, Development Services; Donald Persson, Police; Robert MacOnie, Technical Services; Mel Wilson, David Martin, Liz Gotterer, Transportation; Dick Anderson, Ron Olsen, Randall Parson, Mike Benoit, Ron Straka, Lys Hornsby, Utilities; Deborah Willard, Lori Wood, Production. Acknowledgement of contribution to this plan is made to the following former staff members: Nancy Laswell- Morris, Bob Burns, Mark Isaacson, Airyang Pahk, Joe Sparr, Rubin Yu. OF RF A , A 0 40 . 0 PLANNING COMMISSION • RENTON, WASHINGTON Z NAL 1 . c MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • .235 - 2550 C1 OWN= Z X9.0 CO. 0,9gT�D SEPT,kO0P December 16, 1991 Dear Interested Parties: As 1991 draws to an end, we are very pleased to enclose a draft of the land use policies for the City of Renton. Two years ago, Renton began to update the Comprehensive Plan to be more reflective of our ever changing city. In 1990, the State of Washington passed legislation called the Growth Management Act, that has changed the way we all must deal with land use and growth. In order to meet the State's mandates, the City incorporated their requirements into this update, lengthening the process somewhat. Throughout the two years, input from the public has been very important to the Planning Commission. All our meetings are public and many of you have frequently attended giving us your input. In addition, several public workshops and hearings have also been held. This land use draft will soon be accompanied by the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Together these documents will form the basis for the continuation of the process Early in 1992, a series of public workshops and hearings will be held. When complete, the Planning Commission will deliberate and prepare a final recommendation of the land use policies that will go forward to the City Council for consideration. It is important to remember these draft land use policies form the basis for a vision for the future of Renton. Before they go forward to Council, these policies will be reviewed and fine tuned after the public hearings in early 1992. We encourage your participation in the public hearing process. We would also appreciate any comments you have on the draft be submitted in writing to the City of Renton Long Range Planning Staff. Together we can form a vision and Comprehensive Plan that will help Renton remain the great city that it is. If you have any comments or questions regarding the draft plan process, please contact Mary,. Lynne. Myer. ;.Principal Planner, or Rebecca Lind,_ Project: Mapager,• -at the .City.. of Renton 235- 2552. Regards, Jeffrey Luldns Planning Commission Chairman PRELIMINARY DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Prepared by: Renton Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Section Planning /Building /Public Works December 16, 1991 PREFACE The Draft Policies contained within this document have been prepared by the City of Renton Planning Commission as the policy framework for the 'land use • element" of the Comprehensive Plan required by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A. The law requires that each Comprehensive Plan includes: "a land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses." The adoption :,of ,these policies by the City Council *Quid be a significant legislative action reqAuinng that the City prepare,. an Environmental;yImpact. Statement (EI.S) , which addr`eses alternatives to the proposed policies. The EIS must also discuss potential mitigating measures that could be taken by the City to reduce the impact on the environment from implementation of the proposed policies. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being prepared by the City of Renton as a companion document to thc- Draft Land Use Element. It is scheduled to be issued on January 3, 1992. The Environmental Impact Statement analyzes three land use alternatives. The first, Alternative 1, is based on the Existing Comprehensive Plan, which contains a set of policies which are different from the policies in this report. These policies are reproduced in the Appendix of the EIS. Alternative 2, High Density Center with Infill, is the alternative which reflects the policies drafted by the Planning Commission, and are presented in this report. Alternative 3, Dispersed High Density Centers with Infill, incorporates many of the policies contained in the Planning Commission's document. The most significant differences lie in the Residentiar and Commercial policies. An analysis of the differences between the policies and a set of amended policies for Alternative 3 are contained in the Appendix of the Environmental Impact Statement. The impact analysis and mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Statement will be used to modify and amend the proposed policies, as a final "preferred" land use alternative is considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT This "Draft Land Use Element" is the central component of the "Proposed Alternative II" in Renton's comprehensive planning process. Once an alternative is selected and the land use element redrafted, the other elements required by the 1990 Growth Management Act, housing, transportation, utilities, and capital facilities, must all be in conformance with the land use element by July 1993. Land use regulations must conform by July 1994. This document is divided into the following major sections: Introduction - explaining the purpose, process and legal context of the plan; Vision - summarizing the past and present physical setting of Renton and describing a vision for the future; "Vision" is followed by the land use topics, each containing the following: Discussion - a brief overview describing the background, existing conditions, trends, issues and future scenarios for the particular land use topic; Policies - a listing of the goal (broad statement of community aspirations), objectives (refinements of the goal and its intentions), and policies (more specific statements of the community's positions on particular issues to guide land use review and development decisions); and Strategies & Implementation - a sampling of approaches that may be used to carry out the policies with the ultimate purpose being to achieve the goal and objectives. There are three important points to remember when using this document: 1) Policies are the foundation for decision - making and represent the "official" position of the city once they have been adopted (NOTE: This document contains only draft policies which have not been adopted]; 2) To better understand the intent of the policies it is necessary to review the information in the relevant discussion sections; and 3) Policies should not be applied in isolation but weighed in relation to other relevant policies and considered in the context of their related goal and objective. There is also a glossary in the appendix of this document defining terms which may be unfamiliar or applied differently from everyday use. Finally, if you have any questions or comments regarding this document or the City's existing comprehensive plan, please call the Long Range Planning staff at 235 -2552. i1"ii :tl..::lll•..u.. u...w..........._ _ _.. _. ,.e w...m.w. .,n. YN : ^..t1•: L•.' SA, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 -1 CHAPTER 2 VISION OF THE FUTURE 2 -1 CHAPTER 3 RESIDENTIAL 3 -1 DISCUSSION 3 -1 POLICIES 3 -9 L Location of Population Growth 3 -9 II. Use, Density and Building Scale in Residential Areas 3 -11 III. Building Context 3 -11 IV. Non Residential /Mixed Uses 3 -12 A. Established Residential Neighborhoods 3 -13 B. Established Urban Residential Neighborhoods 3 -15 C. New Residential Neighborhoods 3 -16 D. Downtown Residential 3 -18 E. Commercial Residential Areas 3 -20 F. Rural Residential 3 -20 V. Affordable Housing 3 -21 VI. Design and Improvement Standards in Residential Areas 3 -21 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 3 -23 CHAPTER 4 COMMERCIAL 4 -1 DISCUSSION 4 -1 POLICIES 4 -5 I. Convenience Commercial 4 -5 II. Neighborhood Commercial 4 -7 III. Community Commercial 4 -8 IV. Regional Commercial - Downtown 4 -10 V. Regional Commercial - Recreational 4 -11 VI. Regional Commercial - Intensive Office 4 -12 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 4 -14 CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRIAL 5 -1 DISCUSSION 5 -1 POLICIES 5 -5 I. Diversity and Stability 5 -5 II. Infrastructure 5 -6 III. Environmental Quality 5 -6 IV. Location and Site Design 5 -7 i V. Light Industry 5-8 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 5 -9 CHAPTER 6 AGRICULTURE 6 -1 DISCUSSION 6 -1 POLICIES 6 -3 I. Rural Residential Environment 6 -3 II. Commercial Agriculture 6 -3 III. Open Space 6 -4 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 6 -4 CHAPTER 7 OPEN SPACE AND PARKS 7 -1 DISCUSSION 7 -1 POLICIES 7 -5 I. Open Space System 7 -5 II. City and County Open Space Lands 7 -6 A. Parks and Recreation "7 -6 B. Trails 7 -7 C. Public Open Space 7 -8 III. Critical Areas 7 -8 IV. Secondary Open Space 7 -9 A. Private Residential and Commercial Open Space 7 -9 B. Public and Private Rights -of -Way 7 -10 V. Visual Open Space 7 -11 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 7 -11 CHAPTER 8 ENVIRONMENTAL 8 -1 DISCUSSION 8 -1 POLICIES 8 -4 I. General Objectives 8 -4 II. Surface Water 8 -4 III. Rivers and Streams 8 -5 IV. Wetlands 8 -6 V. Flood Plains 8 -7 VI. Stormwater 8 -8 VII. Ground Water Resources 8 -10 VIII. Fisheries and Wildlife Resources 8 -11 IX. Process 8 -12 X. Atmospheric Conditions 8 -13 XI. Steep Slopes, Landslide, and Erosion Hazards 8 -13 XII. Seismic Areas 8 -14 XIII. Coal Mine Hazards 8 -15 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 8 -15 CHAPTER 9 COMMUNITY DESIGN 9 -1 DISCUSSION 9 -1 POLICIES 9 -5 L Community Form 9 -5 II. Urban Form 9 -6 III. Community Separators 9 -7 IV. Gateways 9 -8 V. Views 9-8 VI. Vegetation 9 -9 VII. Urban Design 9 -10 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 9 -13 CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION 10 -1 DISCUSSION 10 -1 POLICIES 10 -6 I. Transportation and Land Use Planning 10 -6 II. Street System 10 -6 III. Traffic Flow 10 -7 IV. Transit and Other High Occupancy Vehicles 10 -9 V. Non - Motorized Transportation 10 -10 VI. Parking 10 -11 VII. Transportation Facility Design 10 -12 VIII. Funding 10 -12 IX. Intergovernmental Cooperation 10 -13 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 10 -14 CHAPTER 11 AIRPORT 11 -1 DISCUSSION 11 -1 POLICIES 11 -3 I. Air Transportation Facilities 11 -3 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 11 -4 CHAPTER 12 PUBLIC FACILITIES 12 -1 DISCUSSION 12 -1 POLICIES 12 -6 I. Local 12 -6 II. Regional 12 -7 III.Cultural 12 -8 IV. Schools 12 -9 V. Health Care 12 -10 VI. Religious Centers 12 -12 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 12 -13 CHAPTER 13 UTILITIES 13 -1 DISCUSSION 13 -1 i i i POLICIES 13 -5 I. Utilities 13 -5 II. Water 13 -6 III. Storm Drainage 13 -7 IV. Sanitary Sewers 13 -8 V. Solid Waste 13 -9 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 13 -9 CHAPTER 14 ANNEXATION 14 -1 DISCUSSION 14 -1 POLICIES 14 -3 I. Potential Annexation Areas 14 -3 II. Review Criteria for Annexations 14 -5 III. . Boundaries 14 -6 IV. Environmental Quality and Protection 14 -7 V. Emergency and Public Services 14 -7 VI. Annexation and Intergovernmental Relations 14 -8 VII. Annexation, Utilities, and Infrastructure 14 -9 VIII. City Administration of Annexations 14 -10 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 14 -11 iv Maps Page Map 2 -1 Renton Land Use Element Conceptual Map 2 -2A Map 6 -1 Agriculture Map 6 -2A Map 8=1 100 Year Floodplains 8 -16A Map 8 -2 Wetlands Rivers and Streams 8 -16B Map 8 -3 Soil Permeability 8 -16C Map 8 -4 Wildlife Habitat 8 -16D Map 8 -5 Coal Mine Hazards 8 -16E Map 8 -6 Erosion Hazards 8 -16F Map 8 -7 Landslide Hazards 8 -16G Map 8 -8 Seismic Hazards 8 -16H Map 8 -9 Coal Resources 8 -16I Map 8 -10 Clay Deposits 8 -16J Map 8 -11 Peat Resources 8 -16K Map 8 -12 Rock Resources 8 -16L Map 8 -13 Sand and Gravel Resources 8 -16M Map 14 -1 City of Renton and Vicinity 14 -2A v Residential Figure 3 -1 Figure 3 -2 Figure 3 -3 Figure 3 -4 Figure 3 -5 Figure 3 -6 Figure 3 -7 Figure 3 -8 Figure 3 -9 Figure 3 -10 Figure 3 -11 Figure 3 -12 Figure 3 -13 Figure 3 -14 Figure 3 -15 Figure 3 -16 Figure 3 -17 Figure 3 -18 , . . .. • Page verview of Traditional Development 3 -6A verview of Suburban Development 3 -6B uburban and Traditional Development Patterns 3 -7A reservation of Existing Character Single Family eighborhoods reating Better Neighborhoods aking Downtown a Place to Live Range of Housing Types uilding Scale and Mass in Residential Areas onvenience Commercial Use in a Residential eighborhood 3 -8A 3 -8B 3 -8C 3 -11A 3 -12A fill Housing within Existing Plats at 8 Dwelling Units er Acre 3 -13A 3 -12B Ingle Family and Duplex Infill Development 3 -14A esults of Design Standards for Single Family /Duplex Infill i� evelopment 3 -15A esults of Design Standards for Multifamily Development 3 -15A Street View in a New Neighborhood 3 -16A Variable Lot Sizes in New Neighborhoods 3 -17A Mix of Unit Types for New Neighborhoods with Half Single Family Units 3 -17B Downtown Street View 3 -18A Downtown High Rise Development 3 -19A vi `. Figures (cont.) Figure 3 -19 Figure 3 -20 Figure 3 -21 Figure 3 -22 Commercial Figure 4 -1 Figure 4 -2 Figure 4 -3 Figure 4 -4 Open Space Figure 7 -1 Figure 7 -2 Figure 7 -3 Figure 7 -4 Figure 7 -5 Figure 7 -6 Commercial Shopping Area Redeveloped with Residential Uses 3 -20A Rural Residential Development Showing Community Separator 3 -21A Interconnecting Street Grid 3 -22A Street Development Standards 3 -22B Convenience Commercial 4 -6A Neighborhood Commercial 4 -7A Community Commercial 4 -8A Downtown Commercial 4 -10A and Parks Public Parks and Recreation System 7 -5A Open Space in Critical Areas 7 -8A Open Space Dedications within Subdivisions 7 -9A Open Space within Public Rights -of -Way 7 -10A Open Space Using Utility Rights -of -Way 7 -10B Visual Open Space 7 -11A Environment Figure 8 -1 100 Year Flood Plain 8 -7A Transportation Figure 10 -1 Future Public Transportation Network 10 -8A vii DRAFT 12 /16/91 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides a new approach to future growth and redevelopment within the City of Renton. The Plan sets forth a vision of what the City can become which will guide Renton into the 21st century. This vision is expressed in the form of policy statements of how the City intends to guide public and private development. The Land Use policies include long term strategies which could occur over the next 20 years as well as shorter term, 2 -5 year programs. The Land Use policies were developed by the Renton Planning Commission and City staff over a two year period. The Planning Commission will make a formal recommendation to the City Council after additional public review and comment. Outlined below is a background discussion of the context in which the Land Use Ele- ment was developed. This discussion includes current trends and development issues. Some of this information is described in further detail in a background report titled "Community Profile, City of Renton ". It also describes the planning process the City used to develop the plan, and summarizes State requirements for planning. The Existing Comprehensive Plan Much of Renton's current comprehensive plan is more than a quarter - century old, having been first adopted in 1965 and last amended in 1986. Generally, the life of a land use plan is about 10 years. After this point, cities typically revisit their plans to evaluate whether the plan is still valid. The existing land use map may encourage a kind of development which no longer reflects community values, or the policies in the plan may no longer adequately guide decision making. Typical symptoms of an outdated plan include public controversy over projects which conform to the plan, major requests for plan amendments, numerous rezone requests or applications for development projects which do not comply with the plan. Other symptoms may include the continuing existence of underutilized or nonconforming ar- eas which do not redevelop under the plan, even after a long period of time. In Renton these conditions lead to the City's decision to begin a major comprehensive plan revi- sion in 1989. Growth Management Act In addition to recognizing Renton's own desire to review its Comprehensive Plan, it is important to acknowledge that the City exists within a larger framework of State laws which not only give Renton the authority to manage growth, but also require it to meet certain standards. Page 1 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Introduction DRAFT 12/16/91 State planning laws were recently strengthened under the State's new Growth Manage- ment Act of 1990. This legislation requires cities in rapidly growing areas to adopt comprehensive plans which include land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities and transportation elements. All elements of the comprehensive plan must be consistent with each other and with state -wide and county -wide adopted planning goals. State- wide planning goals include provisions which discourage sprawl, support affordable housing, urge protection of the environment, and support provision of adequate urban services. In addition to these requirements, plans must be designed to accommodate 20 year growth forecasts within well defined urban growth areas. The law establishes sev- eral provisions such as impact fees, local real estate excise taxes and growth boundaries to help achieve these goals. All local measures which will be used for implementation such as development regulations and capital facilities decisions must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Renton, together with most cities and counties in the Puget Sound region, will have to revise its comprehensive plan in response to trc state's Growth Management Act be- cause both the existing plan and some of the City's development regulations to not comply with the new State requirements. The Growth Management Act requires that the revised comprehensive plan must be adopted by July 1, 1993. Implementation regulations must follow within one year of adoption. Growth and Development Issues A variety of issues face Renton as it looks to the future. Some of the major ones are: o Continuing the City's role as a regional employment center; o Accommodating expected population and employment growth; o Evaluating multiple and single family housing; o Protecting neighborhoods and quality of life; o Funding improvements and expansions necessitated by growth; o Redevelopment of commercial areas; o Protection of environmentally sensitive areas; and o Improvement of transportation systems. THE PLANNING PROCESS Planning Commission Role The Comprehensive Plan review process was initiated by the Renton Planning Com- mission. The Commission advises the Mayor and City Council on comprehensive planning issues. The Commission began its plan development process with a series of public visioning workshops in 1989. The Commission sought broad based public input on the land use issues facing Renton and the future direction of the community. Page 1 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Introduction Community Survey DRAFT 12 /16/91 Following up on the visioning workshops, the City conducted a telephone and mail survey of resident opinions on planning issues. The purpose of the survey was to pro- vide guidance to the Planning Commission in developing draft comprehensive plan policies. A sampling of issues from the survey results includes: o concern about the number of apartments and condominiums, o the need for development of businesses of all kinds, o development paying its fair share of infrastructure costs, o neighborhood preservation, and o traffic congestion. More detailed information is contained in the report titled Renton Comprehensive Plan Survey Report published in August 1989. Public Review Process The Planning Commission developed several alternative concepts of a future vision for Renton throughout 1990. These concepts were presented for public review and com- ment at a series of three Open Houses in 1991. At the Open Houses an information questionnaire was distributed giving the public an opportunity to make further written comment. In addition, four joint Commission /City Council workshops were held to discuss alternatives to the land use concepts and to provide a briefing for the public and the City Council on the progress of the Plan. Prior to selection of the final alternatives to be included in the Land Use Element Envi- ronmental Impact Statement, the City staff conducted a public meeting to facilitate public comments on the scoping of the environmental document. The City Council also held a public hearing on the Land Use Alternatives which would be analyzed in the EIS. Technical Planning Renton planning staff also conducted evaluations and developed planning recommenda- tions during the process. The City conducted a vacant land inventory and a commercial and industrial land use inventory as background for preparation of the policies. The staff also reviewed background material, prepared population projections and trans- portation analysis, reviewed alternative density concepts, and did research into models of neo- traditional neighborhood development. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Introduction Proposed Community Goals DRAFT 12 /16/91 The City adopted the following mission statement in 1988 to define a common purpose and guide development of all City plans and policies: "The City of Renton, in partnership with residents, business, and government, is dedicated to: provide a healthy atmosphere in which to live and raise families, encourage responsible growth and economic vitality, create a positive work en- vironment, resulting in a quality community where people choose to live, and work, and play. • The Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to carry out the City's Mission statement. To this end, the Planning Commission developed a set of broad goals, objective, and policies for eleven categories within the Land Use portion of the Plan. These eleven elements provide guidance to the city. These elements and their accompanying goals indicate that in the future Renton should pursue the following di- rection. Agricultural Protect the City's agricultural resources. Airport Create efficiently functioning air transportation facilities which are integrated with the city's transportation system and land use pattern. Annexation Actively pursue annexation. Commercial Provide a well - balanced, and robust system of commercial uses which serve the needs of the area. Community Design Provide a distinctive community identity and an aesthetically pleasing city image. Environmental Protect Renton's natural systems, natural beauty and environmental quality. Industrial Develop a strong industrial base in the City. L Page 1-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Introduction Open Space Develop and maintain a diverse open space network. DRAFT 12/16/91 Public Facilities Develop a system of facilities which meet the public and quasi- public service needs of present and future Renton residents. Residential Promote neighborhoods in the city which: a. Have community and neighborhood identity; b. Are pedestrian oriented communities where people can work, shop and play within the proximity of their homes; c. Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation; d. Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income and lifestyle; e. Retain traditional neighborhood development patterns; and f. Are visually attractive, safe and healthy environments in which to live. Transportation Provide a balanced multi-modal transportation system which will adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth of the city. Utilities Provide an adequate level of public utilities in response to and consistent with land use, protection of the environment, and annexation goals and policies. These and other topics will be addressed through the comprehensive plan. The foundation for resolving growth - related issues and for shaping the City's future will be laid in the goals, objectives and policies of the plan. Future Public Process Upon completion of the Draft Land Use Policies and Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Policies, the Planning Commission will conduct a series of three pub- lic hearings on the proposal. After receiving additional public input, necessary revi- sions and refinements to this document will be made. Three additional public workshops will be scheduled for review of the draft policies be- fore the Commission makes it final recommendation to the City Council at the end of March 1992. The City Council will also hold a series of public hearings on the proposed land use policies prior to taking final action on them. Once it is adopted by the City Council, Page 1 -5 Comprehensive P1.n Land Use Element Introduction ., .... .. DRAFT 12 /16/91 the land use element will be used to guide future land use and development decisions in the City. Implementation The Land Use Element will be implemented primarily through the adoption of more specific zoning and subdivision codes and the application of the adopted policies. In addition, a variety of other plans and programs such as sub -area plans, neighborhood plans, a downtown plan, and parks and recreation plans will be developed. The Land, Use Element will also be coordinated with remaining Elements of the Comprehensive Plan required under the State Growth Management Act: these elements include: Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities, and Utilities. The Land Use Element will be the first section of the Comprehensive Plan completed. When all elements of the Plan are prepared, they will be reviewed together, evaluated, and modified as necessary to create concurrency between elements prior to final adoption. The Land Use Element will provide policy direction for preparation of the other elements of the Plan and development guidelines. DRAFT 12/16/91 CHAPTER 2 VISION OF THE FUTURE Physical Setting Renton covers approximately 16 square miles of land at the south end of Lake Washington. It includes portions of the valleys through which the Cedar and Green rivers flow as well as adjacent uplands to the east and northeast. Its location between Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma places Renton in the center of a re- gion that is the economic hub of the State. The City is at the crossroads of a regional transportation network where seven State and Interstate Highways converge and is cen- tral to national and international air traffic. The topography and location of the City afford beautiful scenic views over a variety of significant natural features in the state including Mt. Rainier, the Olympic Mountains, Lake Washington, and the Cascade Mountains. Renton's Past • Renton was formally established with the platting of 480 acres of land by Erasmus Smithers in 1856 -- comprising much of present downtown Renton. The town grew as local coal deposits were mined. Coal- mining remained the most important industry in Renton up to the 1940s. Other industries included production of brick and tile, production and transport of lumber, and the supply of steel, pig iron, and equipment to railroad companies. During this period, the City established itself as an important industrial center. The Boeing Company's decision in the early 1940s to build a new plant at the south end of Lake Washington dramatically influenced the City's future. Rapid growth of the Boeing Company together with the merger of Pacific Car and Foundry into PACCAR, Inc. accelerated the City's rise as a regional industrial and employment center. While Renton's development was dominated by enormous industrial expansion, it also grew as an independent city with its own downtown area and surrounding neighbor- hoods. Through a series of annexations, it expanded from one square mile in 1901 to 16 square miles in 1991. With growth, the City provided more and more urban ser- vices to an increasing number of businesses and residents. Renton Today Renton is currently home to 43,000 people and ranks fourth in population in King County. An additional 60,000 people live in the unincorporated area surrounding the Page 2 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Vision DRAFT 12/16/91 City. It is a city with many well - established neighborhoods - -as well as some new neighborhoods. Its neighborhoods are varied in character and attract people who work in and outside of Renton. Renton continues to be an important center of employment. Over 43,000 people work in the city each day. Most of these people work for the Boeing Corporation which continues to be a major player in the local and regional economy. Renton's history has made it a small city which in many ways still resembles a small town. But several factors place it on the threshold of change: the continued vitality of Renton's industrial sector; regional population growth; and, its location at the cross- roads of local, national, and international traffic. These factors foreshadow a new role for Renton as an important metropolitan center. The challenge for Renton is to manage growth in a manner which maintains the desir- able features of the City while being flexible enough to take advantage of opportunities for change. Renton in the Future: A Vision The draft land use policies shape the growth of Renton in ways that help retain the eco- nomic vitality, environmental quality and character of the community. These policies describe a strong and positive vision of the future for Renton. (See Map 2 -1) If we could view the results of these policies after 20 years we would find a new kind of city in Renton. The City would still be a regional employment center and have a thriving industrial and manufacturing sector. But the City would also grow as an im- portant center of professional offices, retail services and cultural activities. Its down- town area would be more active over a longer period and the its character would be more urban. Future Downtown: Downtown would once again be the primary commercial and gov- ernmental center of Renton. Some areas of downtown would look extensively redevel- oped adding a variety of distinctive, newer buildings to the skyline -- including some mid and high -rise towers. Part of the downtown would retain its original character. Historic buildings would be preserved. Others would be remodeled, reflecting older architectural styles. A lot of people would live downtown - -some in up -scale condominium towers which also house offices, restaurants and retail stores. Others would live in townhouses along parks and waterways, or in apartments above storefronts. Downtown streets would be tree -lined and full of people, eating, shopping, walking, and bicycling. Some streets would become attractive tree -lined boulevards for cars. Others would be mostly for pedestrians with wide sidewalks linking a network of public parks, plazas, and courtyards. Page 2 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Vision DRAFT 12/16/91 The Future Valley: Manufacturing and industrial development would expand south of downtown in the Green River Valley, broadening the City's economic and employment base. New manufacturing development would be well - landscaped, buildings taller, and parking lots smaller. There would be also one or more compact, pedestrian- oriented office and service cen- ters in the Valley. These would serve the manufacturing and industrial areas and con- nect to green belts and boulevards, a network of sidewalks, and bicycle paths. These areas would combine professional offices, retail stores, and restaurants. Future Neighborhoods: Existing single family neighborhoods would look much the same as they do today. Many vacant lots in neighborhoods would have new homes on them. Some would be duplexes designed to look like the single family homes they sit next to. Others would be small single family homes. Existing multifamily neighborhoods would remain, but no new large -scale multifamily development would occur in single family neighborhoods. Many neighborhoods would look better and be more livable than before. Neighbor- hood improvement programs would be in place and would result in more amenities such as new sidewalks, street trees, bicycle paths and small parks. Outside of the downtown residential neighborhoods would be organized in a way that would be reminiscent of small towns of the past. The newly developing areas would have a noticeable absence of large multifamily complexes. Small- lot single family and duplex homes would be most common. Buildings would face tree -lined streets with wide sidewalks. Often garages would be off alleys at the back of a lot. Parks would be within walking distance of almost every home. Future Diversified Commercial Areas: Existing commercial areas elsewhere in the City would be transformed into more compact mixed use centers. Parking lots would be smaller and development more pedestrian oriented. Businesses in these centers would provide community goods and services; most regional services would be relo- cated downtown. In many neighborhoods, new small business centers would become informal gathering places. Most residents would be able to walk to one of these centers. They often would consist of one or two small stores (such as a "mom and pop" grocery store or hair salon) designed to blend in architecturally with the neighborhood. Future Open Space and Parks: Throughout the City and extending beyond it would be continuous corridors of green blending into outlying rural areas. The corridors would form a network of public and private open space that runs through and around the City and its neighborhoods. Page 2 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Vision DRAFT 12/16/91 Some of the network would be land that is protected from extensive development to protect sensitive areas- -such as steep slopes, wetlands and stream corridors. Some would be publicly owned park land. Some of the network would also include low density "rural" residential areas which would be boundaries between urban areas or neighborhoods, be environmentally sensitive or have special scenic value. New Local and Regional Transportation Network: Renton would be linked to a regional rapid transit system that provides connections to major centers north and south of the City (Everett, Seattle, Tacoma). The system would make stops in the Green River Valley including one or more in downtown Renton. A transit center would link the rapid transit system with local bus service. Bus service would provide stops at regular intervals throughout the City, connecting residential neighborhoods with downtown and with employment areas in the Valley. Most people in Renton could walk from their homes to a bus shelter. Greater Sense of Community: Overall, City residents would feel a stronger sense of community in their neighborhoods and pride in their City. This would be brought about by physical changes which would make the City and its neighborhoods more at- tractive and pedestrian- friendly. There would be more informal neighborhood gathering places close to homes like parks, neighborhood business centers or even bus shelters. There would be more cultural activities downtown where City residents could meet and get to know each other. And there would be new opportunities for citizens to become involved in City - sponsored neighborhood planning and improvement programs. Page 2-4 CHAPTER 3 RESIDENTIAL DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The purpose of the residential policies is to provide a vision for future housing devel- opment in Renton's neighborhoods and elsewhere in the City. The residential policies address location of development, housing densities, uses allowed in residential areas, urban form and the design character of neighborhoods. Residential policies will be implemented through zoning controls, subdivision regulations and other City plans, programs or actions requiring City approval. Background The residential policies of the Comprehensive Plan respond to a variety of issues raised by local citizens during the planning process. When considering the City's future, City residents are most concerned about protecting the single family character of their neighborhoods. They point to neighborhoods in the City that are being transformed by large -scale multifamily development as examples of what they don't want to see more of in Renton. They are concerned about the loss of rural areas and open space in their communities, about the loss of affordable housing, about worsening traffic congestion on local arterials and more general "quality of life" issues such as keeping or encourag- ing a strong sense of community in their neighborhoods. At the same time, under state planning legislation the City must accommodate its fair share of the region's 20 year population growth. State policies require existing cities to plan for development at urban densities and take steps to reduce sprawl by discourag- ing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into low- density development. They also encourage local governments to provide affordable housing by promoting a variety of residential densities and housing types, and by helping to preserve the exist- ing supply of housing. The challenge for the future is how to plan for residential development which enhances the quality of life in Renton, but at the same time provides for responsible levels of growth. These issues are taken into account in the plan's residential policies. Existing Conditions Renton values itself as being a city of neighborhoods. Its neighborhoods are diverse in character and setting and are found throughout the City, in both the traditional down- town core, adjacent to industrial and commercial lands, and on the surrounding hill- sides. Page 3 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential DRAFT 12 /16/91 Residential areas in Renton fall into one of four categories distinguishable by their age, platting patterns, housing mix and general density. They include: 1) areas platted prior to 1950 such as North Renton, South Renton and the Highlands that have an essentially geometric or gridlike street system, and are predominantly single family in character but include small -scale multifamily uses; 2) areas platted after 1950 such as Heather Downs, Sierra Heights, Tiffany Park and Rolling Hills that are composed of single family subdivisions on irregular roads and cul-de -sacs; 3) areas platted after 1950 that are formed by a concentration of multifamily housing such as Benson Hill, the North- east 4th Street corridor and the Sunset corridor on the west side of town; and 4) areas in which little platting has occurred, houses are scattered and road networks are incomplete. Housing: The majority of Renton's neighborhoods are made up of single family homes and are predominantly single family in use. Yet, the overall housing mix ap- proaches a balance between single family (50 %) and multifamily units (46 %). Manu- factured housing accounts for an additional 4% of units. Lot Sizes: Lot sizes vary throughout the City. In older areas (platted prior to 1950) lots range in size from 3000 to 5500 square feet. In areas platted after 1950, average sizes are between 7200 and 10,000 square feet. Renton also has unplatted areas where lots are from 10,000 square feet to 4 acres and more. Densities: Net densities are between 14 and 36 units per acre where there are concen- trations of large multifamily structures. Densities are between 8 and 12 units per acre in older parts of the City such as North Renton and West Kennydale. Areas platted af- ter 1950 such as Heather Downs, commonly range from 4 to 5 units per acre. Vacant Land: Vacant land remains scattered throughout Renton but is an increasingly scarce resource. Some vacant land is environmentally sensitive and not suitable for de- velopment. Based on current estimates there are approximately 2,250 acres of vacant and developable land in Renton. The largest blocks of vacant land are generally found in Renton's outlying areas. Smaller pockets of vacant land and vacant lots are found in most of the City's existing neighborhoods. Trends Rapid regional growth has produced development pressure throughout the City. Single family development consumes the greatest amount of the City's developable land. However, in recent years (between 1980 -89), the supply of multifamily housing has grown at a faster rate than single family housing changing the mix of multifamily housing from 39% in 1980 to 46% in 1991. Between 1980 and 1990, 5600 housing units were built in Renton: 67% of these were multifamily units. Page 3 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential DRAFT 12 /16/91 Under current land use policies and zoning regulations the City will see two types of residential development occur Large lot single family subdivisions will continue to absorb some vacant land in Renton's outlying areas. However, mounting development pressure will be placed on larger vacant parcels throughout the City with single family neighborhoods near downtown, along major roads, and at freeway intersections under the most pressure to convert to multifamily use. In addition, large parcels on the edge of the existing City limits or in newly annexing areas will convert to multifamily use. If current trends continue, the City's total supply of multifamily housing could outpace single family housing in the future. Issues The City's existing Comprehensive Plan promotes a suburban development pattern combined with high density residential areas in Renton. The following examines the possible impact of continued development under these policies and regulations in light of major issues to be addressed in the plan. * Preserve the character of existing single family neighborhoods: City residents are concerned about the impact of growth on the character of their neighborhoods. Most want their neighborhoods to change as little as possible. However, with less and less vacant land in the City, current land use policies and zoning regulations will pro- duce pressure for significantly higher densities in some single family neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods will change little while others will witness significant and rapid change. Neighborhoods closest to downtown, along major arterials and intersections or in the outlying areas of the City will experience redevelopment pressure first. Incursions of medium or high density multifamily use are likely to substantially alter the character of those neighborhoods. * Accommodate Future Development While Preventing Sprawl: Under State planning legislation, the City must plan for and accommodate its share of forecast population growth and at the same time discourage urban sprawl. Present forecasts indicate the City must develop a plan that will accommodate 57,000 people over the next 20 years. The challenge is how to accommodate growth and discourage urban sprawl while still accomplishing other important goals- -such as preserving existing neighborhoods and retaining open space. The challenge becomes even greater in view of the City's diminishing vacant land resources. As vacant land continues to disappear, pressure will mount to increase population densities in existing neighborhoods. If large lot single family development continues, additional growth will be accomodated by rezoning existing single family neighbor- hoods to medium or high density multifamily use, or extending development further into rural areas. Page 3 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential DRAFT 12/16/91 * Provide affordable housing: State planning law directs the City to encourage the private sector to provide affordable housing by promoting a variety of residential den- sities and housing types, and by preserving existing housing stock. The City's existing housing stock is now largely composed of single family homes on large lots or multifamily homes in medium or high density developments. Other types of housing choices are currently available only in the City's older, more traditional neighorhoods. Here single family homes on small lots and small -scale multifamily housing (duplexes, triplexes, four- plexes) can still be found. But many of these af- fordable housing alternatives are threatened by redevelopment to a higher density multi- family use. Current land use policies and zoning regulations will limit housing options for those with low and moderate incomes. As land and housing prices rise, large lot single fam- ily housing will become more and more costly. Increasingly, people with low and moderate incomes will find multifamily housing their main affordable option. * Reduce traffic congestion: Population growth generally leads to traffic increases, the major component of which is the private automobile. Development patterns can help minimize traffic congestion by reducing the need to travel by car and by making other modes of travel more feasible. However, current development patterns tend to limit transportation alternatives and make automobile travel a necessity. Due in part to current land use policies and regulations, Renton increasingly reflects conventional suburban development patterns. Land uses are segregated and geographi- cally separated. As a result, places where people live, work, shop and play are too far apart to reach by walking. Those who might choose to walk are typically discouraged by the lack of adequate sidewalks and /or inconvenient routes (produced by irregular street networks) they must follow. In addition development densities are generally too low to support public transit at high service levels. Residential densities of at least 7 dwelling units per acre are necessary to economically justify use of local bus routes operating with 30 minute service.' With the exception of the City's older neighborhoods and multifamily areas, few existing neighborhoods reach this critical threshold. Densities of at least 25 units per acre are needed to support rapid transit - -such as a light rail system.2 Some multifamily areas in the City reach this threshold, but are too far apart from one another to be feasibly served by rapid transit. I "Encouraging Public Transportation Through Effective Land Use Actions ". METRO, May 1987. 2 "Encouraging Public Transportation Through Effective Land Use Actions ". METRO, May 1987. Page 3-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Scenarios for the Future DRAFT 12 /16/91 Renton, like most older cities in the United States which have continued to grow and change, exhibits two types of neighborhood development patterns. These are referred to as "traditional neighborhood development" and "suburban development ". Traditional neighborhood development is reminescent of small town residential areas of the past. Suburban development refers to large lot subdivisions on cul -de -sac street systems. In Renton and elsewhere in the United States a shift from traditional to suburban devel- opment patterns occurred following W.W. II. Some of the forces producing change were the use of zoning to control land use and a dramatic increase in automobile own- ership. Development in Renton prior to W.W. II was governed by simple platting laws, as it was in most communities throughout the United States. Zoning was first used in the City around 1950. Traditional neighborhood development and suburban develk.:,pment produce different kinds of communities both representing possible alternatives for the future. For the purposes of understanding their differences and evaluating their pros and cons, features of each are summarized below. Traditional Neighborhood Development: Unaltered examples of traditional neigh- borhood development are hard to find because few communities have not been changed by the forces that produced suburban development patterns. The most intact examples are the small towns and cities of rural America -- especially those that have experienced little growth in the last 40 to 50 years. However, there are still neighborhoods in Ren- ton which exhibit traditional development patterns, such as North Renton, South Ren- ton, and West Kennydale. Traditional neighborhood developments typically have a community center, a place where people meet and gather within walking distance of their homes. Often these are formed by a small commercial center, a public square or neighborhood park. One of the most distinctive features of traditional neighborhood development is its plat- ting pattern. Streets are laid out in a geometric or grid -like fashion forming a densely interconnected network of roads. Land is divided into a compact system of blocks which are divided into small lots often between 3000 and 5000 square feet in size. Average residential densities range between 4 and 10 homes per acre. Most buildings are small in scale with few structures, except civic buildings, exceeding 2 or 3 stories. Traditional neighborhood development combines a mix of uses within proximity of one another. Small multifamily structures, such as duplexes or fourplexes, are sometimes found intermingled with single family homes. Single family accessory units or mother - in -law apartments are common. Neighborhood businesses such as a local bakery, gro- cery store, drug store, tailor or doctors' office might be clustered nearby at an intersec- Page 3 -5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential DRAFT 12 /16/91 tion. Apartments are often located above storefronts. In Renton, the best example of this mix is found in North Renton. Traditional neighborhood development has a strong pedestrian orientation. There are generally sidewalks along both sides of streets, most with planting strips and often with street trees. Streets and intersections are narrow and convenient for crossing. (See Figure 3 -1) Suburban Development: Suburban development patterns are well established in Ren- ton and are typical of most new development in the City. One of the characteristic features of conventional suburban development is the segrega- tion of uses into districts, a byproduct of zoning. Residential areas are divided into districts for single family and multifamily uses. Density for single family areas is low while in apartment districts density is high. Single family housing is rarely mixed with multifamily housing or neighborhood business uses. There are few places that function as neighborhood centers within walking distance of homes. Platting patterns under suburban development are a dramatic contrast to traditional de- velopment. Housing developments are laid out as enclaves in which the street system is self- contained with limited access points and no interconnection with adjacent devel- opment. Street networks are irregular, composed of curvilinear loop roads and cul -de- sacs. Subdivisions tend to be spacious rather than compact with lots from 6000 to 7000 square feet to one acre and larger. In residential areas buildings range in scale from two or three story single family structures to much larger multifamily structures. In contrast to traditional neighborhood development, suburban development is oriented to the automobile and tends to make minimal provisions for the pedestrian. Streets are wide with long curves and few intersections. Provision of off -street parking is ample, with few cars having to park along the street. However, in many housing develop- ments there are no sidewalks or there are sidewalks on just one side of the street. These are typically narrow and not separated from the road by a planting strip. (See Figure 3 -2) Pros and Cons: Traditional neighborhood development is being looked at in com- munities across the country as a possible new model for community development. The major advantage of traditional development is that it produces a compact, more effi- cient use of land at densities generally sufficient to support public transportation and to make economical use of urban services. Under traditional neighborhood development there is less distinction between single family and multifamily housing because both are similar in building size and height and are intermingled. As a result neighborhoods retain a single family character without being entirely single family in use. Traditional neighborhood development produces a densely interconnected street net- work which provides many potential routes of travel between destination points and Page 3-6 Overview of Traditional Development Figure 3 -1 3 -6A N M L L: Overview of Suburban Development 89 -£ Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential DRAFT 12/16/91 tends to reduce traffic on arterials. And because it is a regular network, is generally comprehendible to those who must use it. Traditional neighborhood development also results in a generally safe and pleasant environment for pedestrians. Streets and inter- sections tend to be narrow, so cars drive more slowly than they do on wider streets making crossings safer for pedestrians. However, critics point out that in traditional developments of the past, roads were too often laid out as rectangular grids insensitive to topography and natural features and producing a monotonous uniformity to the envi- ronment. Suburban development offers what many of us want: a single family home with a large lot privacy on a quiet cul -de -sac. However, its greatest disadvantage is the tendency to promote large lot development which produces urban sprawl. Suburban development does not produce an efficient use of land since all growth cannot be accommodated on large lots. Higher density multifamily areas absorb increased amounts of growth. In addition, the cost of housing on large lots is increasing in urban areas. The irregular roads and enclaves typical of suburban development can be confusing and tend to lengthen distances between destination points due to their lack of interconnect- ing roads. They also tend to funnel more traffic onto arterials. Emphasis on providing for the automobile has produced neighborhoods which neglect the pedestrian. Roads are not safe or convenient for pedestrians; there are too few sidewalks, sidewalks tend to be narrow, and wide streets encourage cars to travel at higher speeds. Low densities make provision of transit service difficult and expensive. (See Figure 3 -3) Future Development Opportunities The City has many choices to make in determining how it wants to grow and what kind of neighborhoods it wants to create. In doing so it should draw lessons both from the past and the present. The following reviews some possibilities for the future. * Preserve Existing Single Family Neighborhoods: Current policies and regulations will allow many existing neighborhoods to redevelop at higher densities. This redevel- opment would create dramatic change in these neighborhoods. This possibility can be removed by changing current land use policies and zoning regulations. By allowing only minor increases in density in existing neighborhoods the City can pre- serve neighborhood character and also meet other important objectives. These include improving opportunities for better public transit service and more affordable housing options. These density increases can be achieved by allowing development on smaller lots, by allowing accessory units in single family homes and by allowing some attached hous- ing, such as duplexes, in existing neighborhoods. The City can take additional steps to ensure new homes are compatible in scale and character with existing homes by using new development standards that are based on existing neighborhood characteristics. Page 3 -7 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential DRAFT 12 /16/91 Existing neighborhoods can also be improved. Some of the negative consequences of conventional suburban development can be reversed by requiring new development to be interconnected with adjacent development, creating a better system of sidewalks and placing more emphasis on visual enhancement of neighborhood streets through street tree plantings. Local improvement districts or special sources of funding can also be developed to provide sidewalks, street trees, parks and other improvements in neigh- borhoods that need these amenities. (See Figure 3-4) * Create New Neighborhoods: The City's undeveloped areas present opportunities to establish new development patterns and reverse the trend toward urban sprawl. New neighborhoods could be created which are dense enough to promote efficient use of urban services and public transportation and yet have the character and feeling of a single family neighborhood. Most homes built could still be single family homes but with lots smaller than are now common in Renton's more recently developed areas. The City's new neighborhoods can reintroduce the best elements of traditional devel- opment patterns -- including street systems which are more regular and interconnected but which also make adjustments for topography and place greater emphasis on provid- ing for the pedestrian. (See Figure 3 -5) * Make Downtown a Place to Live: Much of the City's downtown is underutilized and presents a variety of opportunities for redevelopment. Cities in Washington and throughout the country have been making efforts to reverse post -war zoning which pre- vents mixing office, commercial and residential uses in downtown areas. These areas can be a suitable place to live for many in our communities who wish to be close to employment centers, shopping and urban amenities, or who don't own automobiles. Reintroducing housing into downtown areas can enliven the City's streets with greater pedestrian activity and bolster downtown business. Some communities are even en- couraging redevelopment of shopping malls to include housing. The downtown area can be an important focus for new residential development. It is not only a logical location for higher density multifamily housing but a practical one as well. Downtown housing units can help satisfy some of the demand for much needed low and moderate income housing. (See Figure 3 -6) Page 3 -8 Suburban and Traditional Development Patterns Preservation of Existing Character Single Family Neighborhoods Figure 3-4 I i V"CANT Lars The same neighborhood if developed for multifamily under the existing comprehensive plan. This could occur where land has multifamily zoning. Itl■ j • • • • eh ,0 lak 1.1.126. 1.14 MOW' Existing single family residential neighborhood. 1 11 1E44 II 1 1 1 um.= 11110 -,-,r or maw. risp■ The same neighborhood under the proposed comprehensive plan policies. 3-8A Creating New Neighborhoods Figure 3 -5 * New neighborhood with 10 dwelling units per acre density * Supporting public transportation * Single family character * Interconnected grid network 3 -8B Making Downtown a Place to Live ittvesmvAlvViiireiMOR.%1IMM■71141,41ft-11:10.2vsmir„Innm,,,,,,,... Figure 3-6 3-8C L., Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential POLICIES DRAFT 12 /16/91 GOAL: Promote neighborhoods in the City which: a. have a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; b. are pedestrian - oriented communities where people can work, shop and play within proximity of their homes; c. are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; d. offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income and lifestyle; e. are varied or unique in character; f. retain traditional neighborhood development patterns;, and g. are visually attractive, safe and healthy environments in which to live. I. Location of Population Growth Objective 1.0: Manage and plan for residential urban sprawl and preserving open space. Policy 1.1: Future residential growth should be accommodated through: a. new housing development in Renton's downtown; b. development of new neighborhoods in environmentally suitable vacant land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown; c. development of vacant lots in Renton's established neighborhoods; and d. redevelopment of suitable commercial and office areas to include residential uses. Policy 1.2 Residential development should be limited in environmentally Page 3 -9 growth in Renton while discouraging sensitive areas, and community separator areas. Policy 1.3: Phasing mechanisms or incentives should be developed to ' promote the timely and logical progression of residential devel- opment. Priority should be given to development of vacant land which is located closer to the city's urban center. Discussion: Policy 1.1 refers to different types of areas where some level of future residential growth will occur. These have been defined based on existing land use and development conditions. The definitions used in mapping and developing policies for these areas are outlined below. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential a. Established Residential Neigh- borhoods: Established residential neighborhoods are existing neighborhoods. They include areas of the City where development patterns are established. Most land is developed or platted, although individual vacant lots or pockets of vacant developable land may remain. Few new roads or utilities will be needed with future development. There are two types of established residential neighborhoods: 1) established single family residential neighborhoods and 2) established urban residential neighborhoods. Established single family residential neighborhoods are almost ex- clusively single family in use. Established urban residential neighborhoods include multifamily neighborhoods and neighborhoods which include a mix of single family and multifamily use. b. New Neighborhoods: New neighborhoods include areas physically suitable for residential development where development patterns are not established. Much of the land has not been platted or developed. New roads and utilities will be needed with future de- velopment. c. Downtown Residential: Poten- tial downtown residential areas include the urban center of the City, incorporating the historical central business district and adjacent retail and office use areas. Development is generally characterized by a mix of Page 3 -10 DRAFT 12 /16/91 commercial, light industrial and office uses. d. Neighborhood Commercial Residential Areas: Potential Neighborhood Commercial Residential Areas include existing neighborhood or community commercial lands which have po- tential for residential redevelopment. Projects could include additions to existing commercial structures, remodeling of existing spaces or development of vacant lands. e. Rural Residential: Rural resi- dential areas include areas physically suitable for low density residential development. These include areas where existing densities are low and where natural resources, such as agricultural soils, or environmentally sensitive areas are present. Environmentally sensitive areas include officially designated critical areas.! Rural residential areas may also serve as community separators.2 1 See definition and discussion of critical areas under Environmental Policies, Chapter 8. 2 See definition and discussion of community separators under Community Design, Chapter 7. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential DRAFT 12 /16/91 II. Use, Density and Building Scale in Residential Areas General Policies I. Housing Type Objective 2.0: Provide a mix of housing opportunities suitable for a population di- verse in age, income and lifestyle by encouraging a variety of lot sizes and housing types in the City. Policy 2.1: Encourage the development of small-lot single family development, single family accessory units, small-scale multifamily housing, and residential mixed -use development in Renton. Policy 2.2: The City should encourage a mix of housing types in neighbor- hoods and in development projects. Policy 2.3: Large multi- family devel- opment projects or large concentrations of multi- family development should be prohibited outside the downtown area. Policy 2.4: The City should discourage creation of economic enclaves especially where lower income units would be segregated within a development. Discussion: To provide a full spectrum of housing choices, the City needs to balance Renton's present housing stock with more alternatives. Housing choices would range from rural large lot single family developments to urban apartments. Economic choices would include subsidized housing, market rate affordable housing and luxury units. The following policies propose a greater mix of housing types in Renton's neighborhoods than has been allowed under current land use and zoning policies. High density multifamily housing is proposed only for downtown. (See Figure 3 -7) III. Building Context Objective 3.0: Control the size of structures in new and established neighborhoods so that building scale is compatible with a single family character. Policy 3.1: Single family and mul- tifamily structures in new and es- tablished neighborhoods and structures housing commercial or business uses permitted in new and established Page 3 -11 neighborhoods should be modestly sized, as defined under Policy 3.2 below. Policy 3.2: Structures should generally range from 2 to 3 stories in height and A Range of Housing Types Figure 3-7 Single Detached 'PO Row House co Attached Single Family or Duplex Joined Court ri-T. 113DEP tit Int EJY Li. Triplex Quadraplex Back to Back Semi Detached Stacked Row House (2 Bay) 3 - story Walk-up Apartment Combined Apartment & Rowhouse High Rise Apartment 3-11A Compmhenaive Plan Land Use Element Residential contain from 1 to 4 dwelling units. Specific design standards should be developed governing height, width and length of structures, massing of building Policy 3.3 Multifamily structures greater than 3 stories and containing more than 4 dwelling units should be discouraged in Renton except within the downtown. Discussion: Multifamily structures in new and established neighborhoods and structures housing commercial or business uses permitted in new and established neighborhoods should be modestly sized to maintain a single family character. These policies begin to address this objective by calling out general height DRAFT 12 /16/91 limits for residential development in new and established residential areas. Height limits are also idennfied for commercial uses in neighborhoods under commercial policies. The overall size of multifamily structures is addressed by limiting the number of units that may be housed in a single multifamily structure. More refined standards governing the height, width and length of structures, massing of building elements or surface articulation to control building scale or the appearance of scale should be devel- oped as part of zoning and subdivision code revisions. (See Figure 3 -8) IV. Non ResidentiaUMixed Uses Objective 4.0: Help reduce automobile travel by providing opportunities for people to work in or near their homes. Policy 4.1: Small -scale business uses and home occupations that provide op- portunities for people to work in or near their homes should be allowed in resi- dential areas. Standards should be de- veloped to govern the design and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with residential uses. Policy 4.2: Small -scale neighborhood business centers that provide a neigh- borhood focus and supply domestic goods and services should be allowed in residential areas. Such centers should be limited to commercial or civic uses that are compatible with residential use Page 3 -12 and neighborhood character. Standards should be developed to govern the design and operation of such centers to ensure their functional and visual com- patibility with residential neighbor- hoods. Policy 4.3: Mixed use development (residential /office) should be en- couraged in neighborhood business cen- ters. All commercial or office uses in a residential area should be required to incorporate residential use. Policy 4.4: Non - residential activities should serve residential use. Building Scale and Mass in Residential Areas Figure 3-8 PREFERRED ►mil 4cale vriulki}-a-m+19 Single family residential homes and small scale multi -family dwellings would occur on the same block within some neighborhoods. NOT PREFERRED Convenience Commercial Use in a Residential Neighborhood Figure 3,9 it .: , 1 .601 _ � uuliuunuui i NM MI vitil 7:—.. limmillikiVIMVIIMIIIL r n Commercial Apartment /. N H no_. AN eif ihmai • Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Discussion: The size and intensity of uses should be controlled through development regulations. The intent of this policy is to provide opportunities for the least intensive type of commercial activity to occur in a man- Area Specific Policies A. Established Residential Neighborhoods DRAFT 12 /16/91 ner which does not impact neighbor- hood character. A further intent of the policies is to only allow uses which would not generate additional traffic. (See Figure 3 -9) Objective 5.0: Protect and enhance the character of established residential neighbor- hoods, improve opportunities for better public transportation and make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Established Single Family Residential Neighborhoods Policy 5.1: Net development den - sitiesof at least 8 dwelling units per acre should be allowed in established single family residential neighborhoods. 3 Policy 5.2: A minimum lot size of 4000 square feet should be allowed in established single family residential neighborhoods. Policy 5.3: Single family housing, sin- gle family housing with accessory units, duplexes or up to two attached town- houses should be allowed in established single family residential neighborhoods. Policy 5.4: Maximum height of struc- tures should generally not exceed 2 stories in established single family resi- dential neighborhoods. 3 Net development density refers to density to be allowed on developable portions of a property. Page 3 -13 Policy 5.5: New development in es- tablished single family neighborhoods should be compatible with existing de- velopment. Infill development standards should be developed that reflect char- acteristic or unique features of estab- lished neighborhoods. Important consid- erations these standards should address include: 1) building height, width and length; 2) front, side and back yard setbacks; 3) maximum lot coverage; 4) location of driveways and garages; 5) number of garages; and 6) roofline. Discussion: At present older estab- lished neighborhoods in Renton range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre while newer neighborhoods average 4 to 5 homes per acre. Under current land use policies and zoning regulations the minimum lot size for single family homes is 7200 square feet. The pro- posed 4000 square foot lot size mini- mum is a common lot size in traditional neighborhood development and in the City's older neighborhoods. Infill Housing within Existing Plats at 8 Dwelling Units per Acre Figure 3-10 ( Traditional and subdivision neighborhoods with duplex, zero-lot line and single family residential infill development. 3-13A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential By allowing a minimum lot size of 4000 square feet, densities in established neighborhoods will come closer to the 7 dwelling unit per acre threshold neces- sary to support frequent bus service. A modest increase in densities will also encourage construction of smaller single family residential units and increase opportunities for home ownership. These increases are modest and will have minor impact on established neighborhoods, especially when coupled with new infill development standards as proposed in Policy 5.4 and 5.5. (See Figure 3 - -10) Existing established neighborhoods are predominantly single family in use and will continue to be under proposed residential policies. Policy 5.3 recommends allowing single family accessory units, such as a mother -in -law apartment, in single family homes. Accessory units are not allowed under current land use and zoning regulations, although many exist illegally in Renton. Accessory units are often more afford- able than standard apartment rentals and add to the variety of housing choices available to renters. They benefit homeowners as well. They will also help bring about density increases necessary to support better transit service in established single family neighborhoods. However, unless developed with proper controls they can create problems in neighborhoods, the most common being increased parking. This and other pos- sible negative effects should be ad- Page 3 -14 DRAFT 12 /16/91 dressed through accessory unit devel- opment standards and incorporated iruo the zoning code. Policy 5.3 recommends allowing du- plexes or up to two attached townhouses in established neighborhoods. Currently, duplexes are rarely intermingled with single family homes, except in Renton's older established neighborhoods. But as land resources diminish, and single family housing becomes less affordable, many communities in the United States are beginning to intermingle duplexes with single family homes. However, today's duplexes are not like traditional duplexes. Most are built to look like single family homes and can be made to fit visually in a single family neighborhood using a variety of ar- chitectural and siting techniques. These include, for example, placing duplexes on corner lots so that garages and building entrances occur on differ- ent sides of the building. Also, flexible zoning provisions such as zero -lot line development, can mean owners of a du- plex unit can also own the land that goes with it. Zoning provisions allowing zero -lot line development and duplex development standards incorporating architectural and siting techniques such as those de- scribed here should be incorporated in the zoning code. The zoning code should also speck at maximum percentage of total housing units which could be developed as accessory units zero lot line developments or duplexes. This provision could prevent all lots from • • • xal:;A."4:4 Single Family and Duplex Infill Development Figure 3-11 Al-Prelliaart id( 1313 VOL—. .aiummuil. - fltlii'rn Infill single family and duplex housing on vacant lots would be designed to fit in with existing development. F. /id\ (4116i 717 P IC=111 1 dr_ Duplex: One Land Owner 1 • • Zero-Lot Line: Two Land Owners 3-14A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential having a higher development potential. By reducing and limiting the number of such units allowed, the single family character of neighborhoods would be protected. (See Figure 3 -11) The two story height limit proposed for new development in Policy 5.4 is based on a survey of small lot housing conducted during the planning process. Building height was significant in determining whether or not new development "fit" with existing homes. The current zoning code permits three story single family hcfnes, but few homes in Renton's established neighborhoods are built to the allowed height limit. The survey showed that most three story homes on small lots contrast greatly with existing development and have a negative im- pact on neighborhood character. This policy should not be rigidly inter- preted to preclude what is commonly referred to as "two and a ham story homes where there is a partial third floor under a pitched roof Also, this DRAFT 12 /16/91 standard should be applied with a provision for allowing infill development at up to three full stories when existing homes are three stories. Other important factors observed as a result of the small lot infill survey were importance of front, side and back yard setbacks, location of driveways and garages, number of garages and roofline in determining how well a new project fit into an existing neighborhood. For example, where setbacks and rooflines match the surrounding neighborhood projects tend to fit in better. These factors should be examined and more refined standards developed as part of zoning code revisions. This ap- proach is referred to as "contextual zoning". A set of new zoning designations with standards based on the characteristics of existing neighborhoods would need to be developed. Characteristics identified included those listed in Policy S.S. (See Figure 3 -12) B. Established Urban Residential Neighborhoods Objective 6.0: Encourage development more consistent with a traditional neighbor- hood development character in established urban residential areas. Policy 6.1: Net development densities of at least 10 dwelling units per acre should be allowed in established urban residential neighborhoods. Twelve dwelling units per acre will be allowed if a percentage of units qualify as affordable housing. Page 3 -15 Policy 6.2: A minimum lot size of 3000 square feet should be allowed in established urban residential neighbor- hoods. Policy 6.3: Single family housing, sin- gle family housing with accessory units, duplexes or up to four attached town- Results of Design Standards for Single Family/Duplex Infill Development Figure 3-12 VACANT LOT ouniA I KFIG Making infill development fit the neighborhood character. Results of Design Standards for Multifamily Development r=3 lmo 1E= Lea:5 t===i Figure 3-13 CO ED CO cn Infill multifamily development designed to have a smaller scale. 3-15A Comprehensive Plan Lind Use Element Residential houses should be allowed in established urban residential neighborhoods. Policy 6.4: Maximum height of struc- tures should generally not exceed 3 sto- ries in established urban residential neighborhoods. Policy 6.5: New development in es- tablished urban residential neighbor- hoods should be compatible with exist- . ing development. Design standards should be developed that reflect present development patterns and are sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Standards should address, but not be limited to: 1) building height, width and length; 2) front, side and back yard setbacks; 3) maximum lot coverage; 4) location of driveways, garages and parking areas; 5) number of garages and off -site parking spaces, and 6) roofline. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Discussion: Existing densities in es- tablished urban residential neighbor- hoods range from 8 to 36 units per acre. Vacant land or lots in these neigh- borhoods should be allowed to develop at higher densities than in established single family neighborhoods but should remain low enough to have the smaller scale, traditional neighborhood charac- ter the plan encourages elsewhere in Renton. Redevelopment of parcels in established urban areas should also be guided by these policies. Triplexes and fourplexes would be allowed in established urban residential neighborhoods subject to standards governing their design, location and other factors. Such standards should be incorporated into the zoning code. (See Figure 3 -13) C. New Residential Neighborhoods Objective 7.0: Encourage development densities sufficient to maintaining a traditional neighborhood development character while at the same time supporting transit service and making efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy 7.1: Maximum net development densities should be 10 dwelling units per acre. Minimum net development densities should be 8 dwelling units per acre in new residential neighborhoods. Policy 7.2: A minimum lot size of 3000 square feet should be permitted in new residential neighborhoods. Maxi- mum net densities within a development Page 3 -16 or subdivision should not exceed 10 dwelling units per acre. Policy 7.3: Single family housing, sin- gle family housing with accessory units, duplexes, triplexes or up to three at- tached townhouses should be allowed in new residential neighborhoods. Policy 7.4: Maximum height of struc- tures should generally not exceed 2 sto- ries. ?LI_ 1 fl CI S ® ®(fly nunwn CI ANI I nn a° Nv. 013 ® I IIIII ---- QQ no Qua Alt.! ..._ ,zin 0 -- -. „u----(00, . . _ • Trrii: Variety of small lot single family and attached housing. 3 -16A Street View in a New Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Policy 7.5: A maximum of 50% of units allowed within an individual de- velopment may consist of attached units. The majority of attached units should be duplexes. Policy 7.6: The City should allow de- velopment of traditional neighborhood master planned communities in new single family neighborhoods. In such planned communities: 7.6.1. Net development densities of 12 dwelling units per acre should be al- lowed if a percentage of total units built qualify as affordable housing. 7.6.2 A minimum lot size of 2000 square feet should be permitted. 7.6.3 Fourplexes or up to four attached townhouses should be allowed. 7.6.4 Maximum height of structures should not exceed 3 stories. 7.6.5 A maximum of 50% of units al- lowed within an individual development may consist of attached units. A maxi- mum percentage of units allowed as triplexes or fourplexes should also be identified. 7.6.6 The minimum area necessary for a planned traditional neighborhood community should be 20 contiguous acres. 7.6.7 Planned traditional neighborhood communities should have a town center. 7.6.8 Mixed use development should be allowed in town centers of planned traditional neighborhood communities. Page 3 -17 DRAFT 12 /16/91 Triplexes and fourplexes should be lo- cated near or adjacent to town centers of planned traditional developments. Discussion: A maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet will encourage a variety of small lot single family housing and attached housing while creating new neighborhoods that have a single family character. (See Figure 3 -14) The policies would allow a variety of lot sizes to occur. A minimum lot size of 3000 square feet will permit develop- ment of small homes on small lots. It is also a suitable lot size for attached housing, such as townhouses, where people can own both the townhouse and the land that goes with it. To both meet its growth management objectives and achieve the minimum threshold necessary to support frequent transit service, the City should also re- quire development in new residential areas to achieve a minimum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Partial de- velopment or platting of a site should be done in a way that will not preclude ul- timately obtaining a minimum density of 8 dwelling units per acre on the site. However, the overall density cap of 10 dwelling units per acre would prevent creation of too many 3,000 square foot lots. A combination of lot sizes ranging from 3,000 square feet to 11,500 square feet could occur. (See Figure 3 -15) If a developer wanted to include 3,000 square foot lots in a project, those lots would need to be balanced with some larger lots to meet the 10 dwelling unit per acre threshold. -„ Variable Lot Sizes in New Neighborhoods Figure 3 -15 6,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 5,712 5,712 5,712 11,424 8,712 4,356 4,356 • 4,356 4,356 4,356 4,356 8,712 ALL LOT SIZES SHOWN IN SQUARE FEET All lots shown to scale in relation to each other (LOTS OVER 5,712 SQUARE FEET WOULD REQUIRE TWO UNITS TO MEET 10 UNITS PER ACRE GOAL) 3 -17A Mix of Unit Types for New Neighborhoods Figure 3 -16 • i ii ❖: • STREET • • .. •••• ••••_• . STREET %4: Goal of 10 dwelling units per acre. One half of all units are required to be single family SINGLE FAMILY CI DUPLEX ® TRIPLEX FOURPLEX 3 -17B Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Two story buildings are typical of traditional neighborhood development and most single family homes in Renton. This policy is not meant to preclude two and a half story homes with a partial third floor under a pitched roof (see discussion under Pol- icy 5.4.) or taller homes in special situ- ations, such as on steep slopes, that modify the visual impact of building height. These policies are intended to encourage a mix of housing types in housing projects. At least 50% of units should be single family homes, while up to 50% may be attached housing. Most attached housing would be duplexes, but more specific standards need to be developed to define the percentage of units that may be triplexes or four - plexes. (See Figure 3 -16) The master plan of the community policies promote development of complete neighborhoods that are more DRAFT 12 /16/91 like "small towns" within the City. While this is an objective of the plan in general, it may be easier to achieve through large - scale, master planned development projects. Only projects of sufficient size would be suitable for planned traditional neighborhood communities. The minimum land area required is based on the average size of a pedestrian oriented community and is defined by the distance a person can walk in five minutes from the edge of the neighborhood to its center. Slightly higher densities would be al- lowed under planned traditional neigh- borhood communities than would occur elsewhere in new residential neighbor- hoods. More refined standards gov- erning development of traditional neighborhood communities should be developed and adopted as part of zoning code revisions. D. Downtown Residential Objective 8.0: Maximize the use of existing urban services and civic amenities and revitalize the City's urban core by promoting medium to high density residential devel- opment in the downtown area. Policy 8.1: Mixed use development where residential, commercial and of- fice uses are allowed in the same building or on the same site, should be encouraged in downtown areas that are suitable for residential development. In- centives should be developed to encour- age future development or redevelop- Page 3 -18 ment projects that incorporate residen- tial uses. Policy 8.2: Net residential develop- ment densities in the downtown area should achieve a minimum of 25 dwellings units per acre. Downtown Street View Figure 3-17 CO •-•-• • Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Policy 8.3: High -rise residential devel- opment should be allowed downtown. Policy 8.4: A Downtown Plan should be developed in conjunction with downtown property owners to examine land use, density, transportation, urban design and economic issues associated with plan objectives for downtown and develop more specific strategies and recommendations for realizing those objectives. Discussion: Encouraging residential mixed use development downtown is an important part of the plan strategy for revitalizing downtown, accommodating forecast growth and providing new housing alternatives. To make mixed use development work downtown, the City should: 1) identify areas suitable for mixed use develop- ment, 2) identify existing policy or reg- ulatory barriers to mixed use develop- ment and remove those where feasible, and 3) develop incentives to encourage future development or redevelopment projects that incorporate residential uses. (See Figure 3 -17) High density housing is advocated for the downtown to absorb growth and to create a population in the area to support the mixed use commercial redevelopment envisioned for the area, and to support transit serving downtown. Allowing high -rise development downtown is an important pan of the plan's strategy for accommodating Page 3 -19 DRAFT 12 /16/91 forecast growth and providing new housing alternatives. There is presently no high -rise housing in Renton. New high -rise housing together with policies allowing small lot single family homes and small -scale multifamily housing will round out the City's housing choices. The City should identf where in Ren- ton's downtown area high -rise devel- opment should be located and establish building heights and other design stan- dards to guide future high rise devel- opment. To realize the plan objectives of encouraging new growth and development downtown, revitalizing downtown as a mixed use center, and making it a better place to live requires more in -depth research and planning. The Downtown Plan should identify ar- eas where the historic scale and char- acter of development should be pre- served, areas that are suitable for mixed use development, and areas suitable for high rise development. The plan should identify appropriate use mixes, building heights and special downtown develop- ment standards. These should be coor- dinated with an urban design and trans- portation plan for downtown. The Downtown Plan should also evalu- ate factors creating economic incentives or disincentives for new growth and development downtown. It should de- velop strategies for using incentives or removing disincentives to achieve plan objectives. (See Figure 3 -18) Figure 3-18 Downtown High Rise Development ElR11, 121 RI cE) i rsig 0 im or 0 I 11 +1 61 DI A X i Ei it, r Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential DRAFT 12 /16/91 E. Commercial Residential Areas Objective 9.0: Maximize the use of existing urban services and facilities and revitalize commercial areas outside of Renton's downtown by permitting new mixed use residen- tial development in existing commercial areas designated as community and neighbor- hood commercial areas.4 Policy 9.1: Mixed use development where residential, commercial and of- fice uses are allowed in the same building or on the same site, should be encouraged in existing commercial ar- eas designated in the plan as community and neighborhood commercial areas. Incentives should be developed to en- courage future development or redevel- opment projects that incorporate resi- dential uses. Policy 9.2: Net residential devel- opment densities in existing community and neighborhood commercial areas should be 5 dwelling units per acre. Discussion: The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Residential Areas is to guide the redevelopment of the existing single use commercial areas in the City. Where feasible, the City intends to introduce small multifamily units into existing commercial sites ei- ther as apartments over single story structures or as mixed use redevelop- ments. Such uses could provide a source of affordable rental housing at- tractive to a segment of the population which desires a location close to com- mercial activities. (See Figure 3 -19) F. Rural Residential Objective 10.0: Preserve open space and natural resources, and protect environmen- tally sensitive areas by limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identi- fied as part of a city -wide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within the City. Policy 10.1: Development densities should be limited to a maximum of 1 home per 10 acres in rural residential areas. 4 See discussion under Commercial Policies, Chapter Four. Page 3 -20 Policy 10.2: Rural activities, including agriculture and animal husbandry, should be allowed in rural residential areas except where such uses would have a negative environmental impact. Policy 10.3: To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered in rural residential areas. Commercial Shopping Area Redeveloped with Residential Uses Figure 3 -19 BEFORE Existing commercial store and parking lot. AFTER Residential on top of store; mixed use within building. AFTER Additional residential building on site. 3 -20A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Discussion: The rural residential designation is intended to provide a low density use for lands which are not suited for development at urban densities due to environmental features or agricultural soils. These lands also provide an opportunity within the City for a buffer between more intensely developed areas within the City, or a DRAFT 12 /16/91 separator between jurisdictions. Such lands may also border City parks and /or public or private open space. Commercial agriculture may also be allowed in this designation. (See Figure 20) V. Affordable Housing Objective 11.0: The City should promote the development of affordable housing. Policy 11.1: The City should continue support and participation in a variety of public housing programs addressing the special housing needs of the low -in- come, elderly, and handicapped citi- zens. Discussion: Under proposed Residen- tial Policies in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan the City will encourage private sector provision of affordable housing. This will be done through land use and zoning code revi- sions that permit new housing alterna- tives including: smaller lot sizes for single family detached and attached housing, mother -in -law units in single family homes, and development of new high -rise multifamily housing and mixed use development in downtown Renton. Following adoption of the Land Use El- ement of the Comprehensive Plan, goals and policies to guide government housing programs or to encourage pub- lic /private partnerships in the provision of affordable housing will be developed. These will be adopted as a separate Housing Plan. VI. Design and Improvement Standards in Residential Areas Residential Streets Objective 12.0: Reduce congestion on arterials and provide more linkages within and between neighborhoods by developing a system of residential streets which provides comprehensible conveyance for both vehicles and pedestrians and a continuous efficient interconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the City. Policy 12.1: Streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths in a neigh- borhood development should be ar- Page 3 -21 ranged as an interconnecting network and should terminate at other streets. Cul -de -sacs should be limited to areas Rural Residential Clustered Development Showing Community Separator Figure 3-20 3-21A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential where natural barriers occur. (See Figure 3 -21) Policy 12.2: Streets, sidewalks, pedes- trian or bike paths should connect with those of adjacent developments and provide for connections to future devel- opment. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 12.3: Streets should provide convenient access between homes and parks, schools, shopping and other community destinations. Policy 12.4: Access to and from indi- vidual residences should be restricted along arterial streets. Objective 13.0: Promote development of attractive, pedestrian- oriented communities by ensuring that streets are safe, convenient and pleasant for pedestrians and visually enhance neighborhoods. Policy 13.1: To discourage vehicles from exceeding speeds safe for pedes- trians, residential streets should be con- structed to the narrowest widths (distance from curb to curb) feasible without impeding emergency vehicle access. Policy 13.2: Parking should be allowed along both sides of streets both to serve as a safety buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles and to reduce the need for on -site parking. Policy 13.3: Intersections should be designed to minimize pedestrian cross- ing distance. Policy 13.4: To visually improve the public streetscape and the safety of perimeter sidewalks and facilitate off street parking, construction of alleys Subdivision of Land providing rear access to service entries and garages should be encouraged. Alleys should be required where com- mercial or small lot development occur. Policy 13.5: Sidewalks should be pro- vided along both sides of residential streets. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic. Policy 13.6: Trees should be planted along residential streets. Policy 13.7: Parking lots associated with neighborhood commercial uses, apartments or other uses should be lo- cated behind or adjacent to structures. Parking lots should not be located be- tween structures and street rights -of- way. (See Figure 3 -22) Objective 14.0: Create a neighborhood development pattern consistent with the pattern of development in Renton's older neighborhoods and facilitate development of an inter- connected road network. Page 3 -22 Interconnecting Street Grid • Figure 3-21 C\J Cr) Street Development Standards PA Figure 3-22 N N M Comprehensive Nan Land Use Element Residential Policy 14.1: Land should generally be subdivided to minimize walking dis- tances and provide convenient routes between destination points. Policy 14.2: Land should be arranged in blocks divided into lots with all lots required to front on a public street or a park. Architecture tYal.:a, DRAFT 12/16/91 Policy 14.3: Blocks should be sized to minimize walking distances and provide convenient routes between destination points. Policy 14.4: Residential site plans should preserve sensitive areas, take ad- vantage of significant views, and incorporate natural features. Objective 15.0: Ensure structures built in residential areas are compatible with the existing or desired character of established neighborhoods and the desired character of new neighborhoods. Policy 15.1: Architectural standards structures with the site and adjacent de- governing the design of structures in velopment. residential areas should be developed to ensure the visual compatibility of STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies The following summarizes major strategies and implementation measures proposed in the plan that would be used to shape Renton's neighborhoods in the future. Summary of Strategies: 1. Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods: a remove multifamily zoning designations from existing single family neighbor- hoods; b. reduce the scale of new multifamily buildings built in existing multifamily neighborhoods; c. use design controls to ensure that new development fits in existing neighbor- hoods; and . Page 3 -23 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential ,..� �...:�:Nx� .0 - �,•r.:�N,xx:•,; •�. era•. DRAFT 12 /16/91 d. develop new programs to upgrade existing neighborhoods by adding street trees, sidewalks or neighborhood parks where needed. 2. Encourage development of more livable new neighborhoods: a. reintroduce development patterns more typical of the pedestrian- oriented small towns of America's past and of the City's older neighborhoods where people can afford to live in neighborhoods that are predominantly single family in character, where streets are safe and pleasant to walk along, and where neigh- borhoods have a "center" formed by parks or small neighborhood business areas located within walking distance of homes. 3. Accommodate future development while preventing urban sprawl and preserv- ing open space: a. create new high density housing opportunities in Renton's downtown and exist- ing commercial centers; b. allow suitable vacant land in the City to be developed into new neighborhoods at higher densities than have been allowed in conventional developments of the post -war era (change from 6 du /ac to 10 du /ac); c. permit density increases in existing single family neighborhoods by allowing small lot single family homes, mother -in -law units and some duplexes on re- maining developable lots (change from 6 du /ac to 8 du /ac); and d. maintain a rural level of development in environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated as part of the City's open space system. 4. Provide more affordable housing alternatives and a full spectrum of housing types: a. allow lot single family development, mother-in-law units, small -scale multifam- ily housing (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes) in specified locations. 5. Reduce traffic congestion and improve opportunities for better public transit service: a. encourage development to occur at densities that will support public transit; b. develop new site design and improvement standards that encourage transit fa- cilities and a better environment for pedestrians; and c. create a more interconnected network of residential streets that offers more route alternatives. Page 3 -24 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Summary of Implementation Measures: 1. Revisions to the Current Zoning Code. 2. Revisions to Current Subdivision Standards. 3. Development of a Neighborhood Enhancement Program. 4. Development of a Design Review Program. 5. Development of a Downtown Plan. DRAFT 12 /16/91 L 1, Li 7. CHAPTER 4 COMMERCIAL »ISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The purpose of the commercial policies is to provide a vision for office and retail de- velopment throughout the City of Renton. Commercial policies are intended to provide guidance for decision - makers in siting, designing, and developing office and retail projects. They are also designed to provide direction for implementation through in- centives, regulations, and other programs. Background The commercial face of Renton is changing; as the city grows there is increased pres- sure to develop retail and office uses outside of the downtown. While this increases the convenience to some residents it also erodes a portion of that market for the downtown, contributes to traffic congestion, and encourages strip commercial development along the primary streets throughout the City and the adjacent unincorporated area. In the 1989 Comprehensive Plan Survey, a majority of respondents agreed with the statement, "Renton should aggressively seek development of more businesses of all kinds." This and other concerns about traffic congestion, neighborhood protection, the environment, and land use compatibility must be balanced within the context of the policies. For example, the survey revealed that residents want commercial uses to be convenient to their homes, but at the same time they are concerned about commercial uses encroaching on their neighborhoods. Existing Conditions Renton is characterized by a traditional, historic downtown which has been in gradual decline for several years due to the suburban growth patterns in newer developments both inside and outside of the City. Downtown's lot pattern is designed to accommo- date high density urban development on small lots. By contrast, typical suburban de- velopment, prevalent since the late 1940's, encourages development of low density commercial strips and centers in outlying areas. Some of the older, higher density residential areas still contain small convenience retail uses which serve that immediate neighborhood. These are typically small, within walking distance of most of their customers, and contain a single use; one example being the Kennydale Snappy Mart. The next highest level is generally categorized as neighborhood commercial. Like the smaller convenience commercial, neighborhood uses serve a limited market and pro- vide mostly convenience goods and personal services. When several of these uses are Page 4 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial DRAFT 12/16/91 clustered together they form a neighborhood center which is typically anchored by a grocery store. Other common uses in these centers include pharmacies, video stores, and hair salons. Community commercial centers contain many of the same uses found in neighborhood centers while serving a much larger area. In addition, community centers generally include a small department store or discount store, medical offices, banks, automotive services, and restaurants. A local example is the Fred Meyer Shopping Center, imme- diately south of the city limits on Benson Road. Unlike the convenience commercial and, to a lesser extent neighborhood centers, community centers are designed for auto- mobile traffic rather than pedestrian traffic. In the Renton area most community com- mercial centers, especially the newer ones, are located in the unincorporated parts of the county but near the City limits. In the suburban development model the highest level of commercial activity occurs at the regional shopping mall (e.g. Southcenter). Regional centers typically serve a mar- ket which would include the current population of Renton and its surrounding area. Uses include full line department stores, offices, automobile sales and services, and restaurants. The downtown district currently includes some of these uses but lacks the amount and variety of retail and office development necessary to be considered a re- gional commercial center. It is important to note, however, that the downtown histori- cally has been more urban in character and to judge it solely by standards for suburban malls would be inappropriate. In fact, Renton does not have a regional shopping mall but it is served at least in part by two: Southcenter in Tukwila and Factoria Square near Bellevue. The policies addressing regional commercial uses are divided into three subcategories: downtown, intensive office, and recreational. Downtown Renton continues to serve as an area for residential, commercial, and industrial uses which work in the traditional urban format. Intensive office developments provide an important employment base and aug- ment the market for retail. In Renton these uses can be found near Boeing, along I -405, and in the north part of the Green River Valley. Recreational uses which serve a regional market (e.g. sports facilities, amuse- ment centers) are also a benefit to the city when properly planned and sited. Longacres Race Track is a good example of this type of use even though Lon - gacres is scheduled to close in 1992; policies for this use are included in the plan should any facilities be proposed in the future. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial Trends DRAFT 12 /16/91 Continuation of the low intensity, suburban growth pattern will likely result in more neighborhood and community commercial centers in the outlying areas. This is rein- forced by the most recent residential and commercial development that has occurred in the May Valley, Fairwood, and Benson Hill areas. Strip commercial is another com- mon result of low intensity development, especially along principal and major arterial routes; one example is along both sides of Benson Road south of Carr /SE 176th. Unfortunately this type of development pattern carries economic and environmental costs to the entire City. Economically there is a cost for the extra driving required for work and personal trips. This also continues to draw commercial business from the downtown area. In terms of environmental costs there is the declining air quality from automobile emissions and inefficient land use. A more intense use of the land concen- trated in designated areas would be more efficient because it could reduce the length and number of automobile trips, improve the efficiency of providing services, and in- crease the potential for protecting environmentally critical areas. The 1990 Growth Management Act recognizes that if we are to improve or even main- tain our quality of life there will have to be a fundamental change from a traditional suburban to a more urban land use pattern. Simply put, densities must be increased in urban areas. Renton is considered an "urban" area under the Act. Greater residential density will expand opportunities for commercial uses to be mixed with residential and industrial developments. Issues The goal, objectives, and policies in this section are designed to address several issues related to commercial development. * Revitalizing the downtown: The heart and soul of any true city is its downtown. Like most other cities in this country, Renton's downtown has suffered from typical suburban development which has sapped its commercial and residential base. Given the high level of employment and transportation access in and near the downtown the potential exists for reinforcing its role as the primary regional district for the city and the surrounding area in providing financial and other professional services, office em- ployment and services, retail goods and services, and transit links with other parts of the Puget Sound area. * Providing adequate land for a mix of commercial uses: The key to this issue is the "mix." Until recently, planning practice has been to encourage the separation of residential, commercial and industrial uses. Unfortunately, this has created sterile liv- ing environments where daily activities cannot be conducted without an automobile. One objective throughout these commercial policies is to reduce the dependence on au- tomobiles for so many trips and thereby reduce some of the impacts on residential ar- Page 4 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial DRAFT 12/16/91 eas. As population growth continues it is important to ensure that adequate land is set aside during the planning process to accommodate the future needs of a growing area. The commercial policies in this plan advocate mixing uses in a compatible fashion and providing for limited commercial uses in residential developments. * Accommodating commercial development: Residents want the convenience of re- tail goods and services nearby, some even within walking distance. But they also fear the increased traffic and other adverse impacts often associated, fairly or unfairly, with these uses. Commercial developers also want locations which are convenient to their consumers. Objections often arise when the consumers are coming from farther away and the development is larger and less compatible with surrounding residential uses. Siting and design which is appropriate to the consumer market and the location can overcome many of these objections. * Retention of industrial land: Industrial uses generally require large parcels of land with good regional access. Renton offers both of these. Unfortunately, shifting land use patterns and a declining industrial employment sector has left many prime industrial parcels open for redevelopment, usually to commercial. This depletes the amount of land ultimately available for manufacturing and other industrial uses and could cause them to locate elsewhere. Scenarios for the Future Policies are supposed to provide the general direction for achieving the stated goal and objectives. In general, the policies suggest a more flexible regulatory approach in conjunction with a greater emphasis on incentives and other similar means to achieve the desired objectives. While there are numerous, more specific actions which can be taken, the commercial policies in this plan suggest the following types of actions. * Revitalizing downtown: There are many factors working in favor of reversing the decline of the downtown district. The Growth Management Act of 1990 directs growth into urban areas; this has the effect of increasing density in and near the city center. This also creates opportunities for providing incentives for directing higher intensity residential and commercial development into the downtown. * Mixing uses: Past City policies and regulations discouraged mixing residential, commercial and industrial uses. These policies suggest an approach which is more permissive in land use regulation to allow mixed use projects with an emphasis on compatibility. At the same time the policies are intended to rely more on incentives than regulation to foster the desired mix. * Accommodating commercial uses: Closely tied to mixing uses is the siting and design of commercial uses. While some commercial uses may be located in conjunc- tion with residential development, it is important to provide an efficient and balanced system of commercial land uses on several levels. The policies suggest that these uses Page 4-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Uae Element Commercial DRAFT 12 /16/91 should be grouped together to avoid strip development and proliferation of commercial centers all over the City. Residential areas adequately served by a neighborhood and a regional center, for exam- ple, do not need to be served by a community center. By the same token, neighbor- hood centers should not automatically evolve into community centers if there are exist- ing centers meeting that need. Design of commercial uses can also go a long way toward overcoming residents' objec- tions. Sensitivity to building scale, signage, lighting, site layout, and public amenities are gradually becoming commonplace in commercial developments at all levels. * Retention of industrial land: Reserving adequate land for all types of land use is important. In Renton's case, however, reserving land for industrial purposes is even more important because it has been the economic base of the city and will no doubt continue to be. Recent development projects have demnstrated a trend toward as- sembling relatively less expensive industrial parcels for predominantly office uses. In addition to depleting industrial lands this has also diminished, at least in the short term, the potential for intensive office development in the downtown district. While this issue is tied to the industrial policies, it is also addressed in part through the policies to concentrate commercial uses in designated areas. POLICIES COMMERCIAL GOAL: Provide a well - balanced, compatible, attractive, conve- nient, and robust system of commercial uses which serve the needs of the area. I. Convenience Commercial Objective 1.0: Permit small -scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas. Policy 1.2: Products and services re- Policy 1.1: A mix of uses (e.g. con- lated to motorized machinery, vehicles, venience retail, consumer services, of- or equipment should not be allowed as fices, residential) should be encouraged small -scale neighborhood commercial in small -scale commercial develop- uses. ments. Page 4 -5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial Policy 1.3: Land for small -scale com- mercial uses should be reserved during the master - planning and subdivision process of newly developing, large residential areas. Policy 1.4: Sites and structures of small -scale commercial uses should be similar in design and intensity (e.g. sig- nage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) with less inten- sive, adjacent uses. Policy 1.5: Small -scale commercial uses should be encouraged (i.e. through incentives or similar means) tc, relate to existing public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas). Policy 1.6: Site and building design of small -scale commercial uses should be pedestrian/people oriented and mini- mize automobile use. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 1.7: Vacant commercial sites should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to mitigate adverse visual, economic, and health/safety impacts on the surrounding area. Discussion: The policies are designed to ensure that small -scale commercial uses provide convenience goods and services to a limited residential area while blending in with the residential setting. The key to these policies is the blending of uses. For example, policies encourage mixed use structures such as a residence above a storefront. At the same time the structure is supposed to maintain a scale and design similar to the surrounding residential uses. In addition, these uses are intended to generate pedestrian rather than auto- mobile traffic. Uses of this type are expected to become more common as residential densities increase. Objective 2.0: Maximize the convenience and minimize the impacts of small -scale commercial uses through appropriate siting. Policy 2.1: Small -scale commercial uses should be located: a) within pedestrian range of exist- ing and planned residential population centers. b) outside of the trade area of other small -scale commercial uses of- fering comparable goods and services. c) contiguous to a street classified at the collector level. Page 4-6 Policy 2.2: Small -scale commercial uses may locate in close proximity to one another but should not concentrate to the point of changing the predomi- nant character of an area from residen- tial to commercial. Discussion: The locational policies for small -scale commercial uses are in- tended to ensure siting which provides convenience to the residents without detracting from the residential charac- ter. For example, the policy about pedestrian range is intended to encour- age residents to walk rather than drive. ; 41w4Y` FV. Sax+ dMNF. w�f1' aa47: att. avoiagnK .rw,.�........,.�.,•..�.__..... Convenience Commercial Figure 4 -1 - I►•aissmME MIR -- - ---MI — di . IN NM ELM MIN OM OM IIIIIIIIIIIIIR RUN MINIM MN NE =MIMI .1 f, % ;1 r 4 -6A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial It also means that if a lot of customers have to drive to use the center then it probably is not a true "small - scale" convenience center. Generally speak- ing, these uses should be within walking distance of most of their customers but DRAFT 12 /16/91 on a collector arterial street. Some grouping of these uses is also possible and even desirable; however, the poli- cies discourage any concentration which changes the basic character of the area. (See Figure 4 -1) II. Neighborhood Commercial Objective 3.0: Permit neighborhood commercial centers which serve the basic, ongo- ing needs of the population in adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Policy 3.1: A mix of retail goods and services (e.g. convenience retail with gas pumps, sandwich shop, professional office, minor emergency clinic, grocery and drug store, church) should be en- couraged to cluster in neighborhood commercial centers. Policy 3.2: Land for neighborhood commercial centers should be reserved during the master planning and subdi- vision process of newly developing, large residential areas. Policy 3.3: Sites and structures of neighborhood commercial centers should be compatible in site and build- ing design and intensity with adjacent uses. Policy 3.4: Enhancement of public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environ- mental impacts, should be encouraged (i.e. through incentives or similar means) as part of every neighborhood commercial development. Policy 3.5: Site and building design and use should be oriented primarily Page 4 -7 toward pedestrian /people activity and minimize automobile use. Policy 3.6: Neighborhood commercial centers should provide buffers for less intensive, adjacent uses. Policy 3.7: Site design of neighbor- hood commercial developments should be encouraged to maximize public ac- cess to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contigu- ous to a river, lake, or stream. Policy 3.8: Vacant commercial sites should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to mitigate adverse visual, economic, and health /safety impacts on the surrounding area. Discussion: Unlike convenience commercial, neighborhood commercial serves a larger area and is more com- mercial in appearance and function. Although it will tend to orient more to- ward automobile traffic, a basic objec- tive is to reduce the need for the au- tomobile for these types of trips. The policies are oriented toward site design standards and incentives to ensure bet- • .i, Neighborhood Commercial Figure 4-2 4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial ter compatibility between uses. As with all commercial categories, mixed uses are also encouraged, including offices DRAFT 12 /16/91 and apartments as part of the develop- ment or structure. Objective 4.0: Minimize the length and number of automobile trips through appropri- ate siting of neighborhood commercial centers. Policy 4.1: Neighborhood commercial centers should be: a) located within pedestrian range of existing and planned popula- tion centers. b) located within pedestrian range of an existing or planned transit stop. c) clustered at the intersection of a collector arterial street and a mi- nor arterial or two minor arteri- als. d) located outside of the trade area of other centers offering compa- rable goods and services. Policy 4.2: Promote the clustering of neighborhood commercial uses and dis- courage the development of strip com- mercial areas. Policy 4.3: Neighborhood commercial uses and /or centers may be sited within or adjacent to major employment cen- ters (e.g. downtown, Green River Val- ley, Boeing north). Discussion: Neighborhood commercial uses are generally intended to be clus- tered into a single site or adjacent sites at an intersection where automobile traffic is less likely to impact the imme- diate neighborhood. Unlike the conve- nience commercial, which is aimed solely at residential areas, neighbor- hood commercial can also be located in or near intensive office and industrial areas to serve the needs of those "neighborhoods. " Another purpose of the policies is to discourage the prolif- eration of centers and strip develop- ment. (See Figure 4 -2) M. Community Commercial Objective 5.0: Accommodate community commercial centers which provide a wide range of consumer goods and services to an area which includes several neighborhoods, but is smaller than the entire city. Policy 5.1: A mix of land uses (e.g. retail, residential, services, office, day care, churches, neighborhood storage Page 4 -8 facilities) should be encouraged at community commercial centers. Policy 5.2: Community commercial sites and structures should be compati- Community Commercial Figure 4-3 CO Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial ble in design and intensity (e.g. sig- nage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) with adjacent land uses. Policy 5.3: Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged (i.e. through in- centives or similar means) as part of ev- ery community commercial develop- ment. Policy 5.4: Site design of community commercial developments should be oriented primarily toward pedestrian traffic with provisions made for transit and automobiles as well. Policy 5.5: Site design of community commercial developments should be en- couraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake or stream. Objective 6.0: Site community commercial priate to their intended markets. Policy 6.1: Community commercial centers should be located: a) at the intersection of principal arterial streets; b) contiguous to an existing or pro- posed transit route; and c) outside of the trade area of other community commercial activity centers offering similar goods and services. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 5.6: Parking should be encour- aged to located to the side and rear of the property and should mitigate im- pacts on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy 5.7: Vehicular circulation should be internal and access to adja- cent streets should be minimized. Policy 5.8: Vacant commercial sites should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to mitigate adverse visual, economic, and health /safety impacts on the surrounding area. Discussion: Community commercial policies encourage quality, compatible site design through a combination of de- sign criteria and incentives. Additional policies in this section offer direction for minimizing the impact of automobile traffic and parking through better site design. (See Figure 4 -3) centers with transportation access appro- Page 4 -9 Policy 6.2: Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and dis- courage the development of strip com- mercial areas. Policy 6.3: Community commercial uses and /or centers may be sited within or adjacent to major employment cen- ters (e.g. downtown, Green River Val- ley, Boeing north). Discussion: This level of commercial center serves a larger portion of the city and is more automobile dependent than the previous two commercial types. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial This difference is reflected in the level of street needed to serve community commercial centers. Another more subtle difference is Policy 6.1 which DRAFT 12 /16/91 suggests sites be contiguous to transit routes rather than within walking dis- tance. IV. Regional Commercial - Downtown Objective 7.0: Reinforce downtown Renton trict in the City. Policy 7.1: Regional serving uses should locate within the downtown dis- trict. Policy 7.2: Sufficient land for devel- opment and redevelopment to meet the projected future needs for regional com- mercial space should be provided in the downtown district. Policy 7.3: A mix of regional, com- munity, and neighborhood level goods and services (e.g. retail, residential, services, office, light industrial, elder care, child care) should be encouraged. Policy 7.4: Automobile sales and ser- vice uses which require large amounts of land should be encouraged to locate in an "auto mall" outside of the down- town district. Policy 7.5: Site and building designs (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) should reflect unity of design to create a dis- tinct sense of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Policy 7.6: Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, as the primary regional commercial dis- should be encouraged (i.e. through in- centives or similar means) as part of ev- ery development. Policy 7.7: Site and building design should be pedestrian /people oriented with provisions for transit and auto- mobiles where appropriate. Policy 7.8: Site design of regional commercial developments should be en- couraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake or stream. Page 4-10 Policy 7.9: Regional commercial de- velopments should be located in areas with immediate access to an interstate or state route and in areas at the inter- section of at least two principal arteri- als. Policy 7.10: Development of other regional commercial centers or uses which would detract from the economic viability of the downtown district should be discouraged. Policy 7.11: Promote the clustering of regional commercial uses and discour- age the development of strip commer- cial areas. Downtown Commercial Figure 4-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial Policy 7.12: Regional commercial centers should be linked by mass transit to major employment and population centers. Policy 7.13: Parking should be struc- tured whenever feasible and serve more than one use. Policy 7.14: Regional commercial uses relocating to and within the city should be accommodated, when practical, in order to retain those commercial uses. Policy 7.15: Vacant commercial sites should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to mitigate adverse visual, economic, and health /safety impacts on the surrounding area. Discussion: Downtown is an important part of Renton's past, present, and fu- ture and these policies strive to empha- size that point. The aim of the policies is to bring retail, office and residential uses back into the downtown in greater amounts and intensities than before. At DRAFT 12 /16/91 the same time there are design criteria and incentives implicit and explicit in the policies to ensure that downtown develops in an efficient and attractive manner. The downtown policies also place a greater emphasis on creating a land use pattern more conducive to pedestrians and transit. (See Figure 4- 4) In a downtown summit convened in April 1990, the Downtown Renton As- sociation envisioned: "...a mix of uses in downtown to include residential, commercial, light industrial, retail, public service, entertainment, recre- ation and youth activities." The vision also includes the new municipal com- plex as one anchor, a variety of spe- ciality stores, and improved transporta- tion linkages with local employment and population centers and the rest of the region. The downtown plan will be developed around that vision and focus on specific policies and actions to be taken by the public and private sectors. V. Regional Commercial - Recreational Objective 8.0: Accommodate large -scale commercial recreational facilities that are primarily dependent on open land for their recreational function instead of structural facilities and are intended to serve consumer demands within a region which includes, but is larger than, the City. Policy 8.1: A mix of uses (e.g. retail, elder care, child care) should be en- couraged at recreational commercial facilities. Policy 8.2: Sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building Page 4-11 height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses and transportation corridors. Policy 8.3: Parking should be provided on -site, buffered from adjacent uses, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial and encouraged to be provided in structures. Policy 8.4: Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Policy 8.5: Vehicular access to the site should be from a principal arterial street with the number of access points min- imized. Policy 8.6: Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged (i.e. through in- centives or similar means) as part of ev- ery development. Policy 8.7: Site and building design should be transit and pedestrian /people oriented. Policy 8.8: Site design of commercial recreational developments should be en- couraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake or stream. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 8.9: Recreational commercial centers should be located in areas with immediate access to an interstate or a state route and contiguous to a principal arterial. Policy 8.10: Recreational commercial centers should be located outside of the trade area of other recreational com- mercial centers offering similar recre- ational opportunities. Policy 8.11: Vacant commercial sites should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to mitigate adverse visual, economic, and health /safety impacts on the surrounding area. Discussion: As with the regional institutional uses, the plan must also consider the siting and design of re- gional recreational uses such as sports facilities and amusement centers. These policies are similar to other regional policies and reference regional recre- ational uses in particular. VI. Regional Commercial - Intensive Office Objective 9.0: Accommodate localized centers of intensive office activity that are in- tended to provide a wide range of business, financial and professional services to local, regional, national, and global markets. Policy 9.1: A mix of uses (retail, services, elder care, child care) should be encouraged within intensive office centers. Policy 9.2: Retail goods and services should be encouraged to locate on the Page 4 -12 ground floor of office and parking structures. Policy 9.3: High -rise office develop- ment should be limited to 30 stories in height. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial Policy 9.4: Height bonuses may be allowed in designated areas under ap- propriate conditions. Policy 9.5: Intensive office develop- ments should be concentrated within the north part of the Green River Valley and the downtown districts. Policy 9.6: Intensive office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. sig- nage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate ad- verse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy 9.7: Parking should be provided on -site, in parking structures, and buffered from adjacent uses. Policy 9.8: Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Policy 9.9: Vehicular access to the site should be from the major street with the access points minimized but designed to ease entrance and exit. Policy 9.10: Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged (i.e. through in- centives or similar means) as part of ev- ery development. Policy 9.11: Site and building design should be transit and pedestrian /people oriented. DRAFT 12/16/91 Policy 9.12: Site design of intensive office developments should be encour- aged to maximize public access and use of public areas, as well as shoreline ar- eas, in locations contiguous to a river, lake or stream. Policy 9.13: Intensive office develop- ments should be located in areas with immediate access to an interstate or state route and at the intersection of two principal arterials. Policy 9.14: Intensive office centers should be located contiguous to an ex- isting or planned transit route. Policy 9.15: Vacant commercial sites should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to mitigate adverse visual, economic, and health /safety impacts on the surrounding area. Discussion: Intensive office develop- ment is a regional commercial use which could develop in more than one area in Renton. The policies very clearly state the intent of concentrating this type of commercial development in the downtown district and the north part of the Green River Valley. These poli- cies are in keeping with other objectives of reinforcing the downtown and providing regional access (i. e. 1 -405 and S.R. 167). Another important fea- ture of these policies is the provision for mixing retail and residential uses into the development and individual build- ings. Page 4 -13 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies 1. Revitalize the downtown: DRAFT 12/16/91 a. develop a downtown district plan and identifying implementation programs and funding strategies; b. direct higher density residential development into the downtown district; c. build on the historic character of several downtown buildings; and d. improve transportation access to population and employment centers. 2. Encourage the development of mixed use projects: a. incorporate mixed use concept into appropriate ordinances; and b. establish standards for site and use related characteristics that are considered es- sential for compatibility with adjacent uses: at a minimum these should include signage, building height, building bulk, building setback, landscaping, buffer- ing, lighting, traffic generation, hours of operation, product line, manner and scheduling of deliveries, location and amount of on -site parking (including structured where appropriate), and on -site pedestrian circulation. 3. Accommodate commercial uses: a. reserve land for commercial uses during the master - planning and subdivision processes; b. develop locational criteria based on transportation needs for the commercial site and surrounding land uses; and c. create regulatory incentives to encourage more and better integration of public amenities such as parks, plazas and recreation areas into commercial develop- ments. 4. Reserve industrial land: a. clearly designate industrial areas on the comprehensive plan map; b. concentrate commercial uses, especially intensive office, into designated areas where they can best be served by other commercial uses, infrastructure, and transit; and Page 4-14 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Commercial DRAFT 12/16/91 c. determine, in a regional context, the amount and type of industrial development desired by and appropriate to Renton. Implementation 1. Revise the city code, as appropriate, to reflect the letter and intent of the Compre- hensive Plan. 2. Develop a plan for the downtown with an emphasis on land use. 3. Designate and develop subarea plans for other regional use districts. Page 4-15 CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRIAL DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 Industrial policies provide direction for the development of industrial and related uses throughout the City of Renton. The policies also address several issues pertaining to preservation of industrial land, location and site design, environmental impacts, and the services needed to support industrial uses. Background Industrial development has influenced the development of Renton and its region since it was first settled in the mid 1800's. Because of the nearby forests and proximity to water for transport, the first local industry was timber harvesting and processing. Beginning in the 1870's and continuing through the 1940's, Renton was known for its coal mining and brick making operations. Renton bricks were used locally to rebuild Seattle after the fire of 1889 while others were shipped as far away as Japan. With the new century came a new industry, metal foundry and steel manufacturing. Pacific Car and Foundry initially supplied steel and equipment to the railroads and logging concerns. The two world wars altered the market and the company shifted to tank production and later trucks. Pacific Car's successor, PACCAR, is still a significant employer in Renton. The other major industrial impact occurred with World War II when the Boeing plant was constructed at the south end of Lake Washington. Boeing's manufacturing plant and the related research and development facilities in and around Renton had, and continue to have, an influence on the city's development. Existing Conditions Over 14% of the land in Renton is currently used for industrial purposes. An additional 535 acres, nearly 25 % of the total vacant land in the city, is currently zoned for manufacturing, light industry and office park. Hypothetically, if all of the zoned land were actually put into industrial use it would account for about 20% of all land use in the city. Most of the heavy industrial uses are concentrated in two areas of the City; one to the north along Lake Washington and the other to the south and west in the Green River Valley. These areas also offer the potential for future industrial development because of available land, proximity to existing industry, and good regional transportation access (both rail and highway). Additionally, industrial development includes Page 5 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial DRAFT 12 /16/91 Stoneway Sand and Gravel, and Interpace Brick companies located east of I-405 along the Maple Valley Highway. There are also several heavy industrial uses to the north and west of the Metro wastewater treatment plant. Light industrial uses are presently located throughout the city. Typical locations include downtown, adjacent to the airport, and interspersed in and near heavy industries. These uses are important to the overall development of the city because they provide materials and services for other industrial and commercial establishments. They also contribute to the employment and economic base of the local economy. Although industrial land use is a significant feature of Renton, the resulting employ- ment has a greater impact on the area. Renton is unique for most cities of its size in that the number of persons employed in the city is greater than the number of residents. According to 1991 figures, 43,936 people are employed in Renton, compared to 43,000 residents. The Boeing Corporation is by far the largest employer with over 24,000 employees, or about 55% of the total work force in the city. Although a large portion of Boeing jobs in Renton are in research, development, and office support staff, they are related to the industrial activities of the company. The next two largest industrial employers in the city, PACCAR and Puget Power, employ 575 and 250, respectively. Trends Industrial land use is typically not as dynamic as commercial and residential. Industrial uses, especially large -scale manufacturing plants, are generally developed incrementally over a long period of time. By the same token, when they do redevelop it is likely to be as another industrial use. When the redevelopment is into a non - industrial use, it may take years for redevelopment to occur due to the transition of the entire area, inappropriate infrastructure, or clean-up of contaminants on the site. Some industrial redevelopment has already occurred in Renton. Coal mine operations and the related industries have long since been replaced by other uses and all but one of the timber mills are gone. The only mill still operating on Lake Washington is the Barbee Mill in north Renton. An important ongoing redevelopment project is occurring at the PACCAR site. This is an example of redevelopment to another, and in this case similar, manufacturing use. From steel and mining equipment to building tanks for the war, PACCAR has been a heavy manufacturing use. Environmental clean -up of the site is now in progress to construct a state -of -the -art Kenworth Truck manufacturing plant. Industrial employment, especially manufacturing, is declining nation -wide as the economy becomes more service based. Due to the larage, existing, industrial base in Renton, however, that trend is not as pronounced. According to the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) the proportion of jobs in the industrial sector is pro- jected to decline but the number of manufacturing jobs in this area is expected to Page 5 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial DRAFT 12 /16/91 remain relatively stable, at least through the year 2020. The number of jobs in one sector, wholesale/ transportation /communication/utilities, is projected to nearly double in the Renton area during the same period. This group represents much of what is generally considered to be light industrial land use. There is another trend taking place in Renton; industrially zoned land is being used for non - industrial uses. This trend is important for two reasons. First, it reflects the re- gional economy's gradual shift from an industrial base to a service base. And second, it could have a detrimental effect on retaining the industrial base if too much land is converted to nonindustrial uses. It is difficult to assess exactly how much land is being lost because current industrial zoning districts allow for some nonindustrial uses. For example, most of the land west of S.R. 167 and south of the Burlington - Northern Railroad is designated on the city's existing Comprehensive Plan land use map as manufacturing park. The same area is designated as manufacturing park on the zoning map as well. The manufacturing park zone (M -P) allows for a variety of uses from movie theaters to hazardous waste treatment facilities. According to the 1989 Community Profile, there are 192 acres of vacant land zoned office park and 64 acres of vacant land in business zones. By comparison, there are 335 acres of vacant land zoned for manufacturing park and only 8 acres of vacant land in the light industrial zone. Issues The key issues addressed by the policies are: * Continue importance of industrial employment: In order to retain its industrial base the city must ensure that there will be adequate land for new industries and redeveloping ones. Industrially zoned land is being lost to other uses. If this trend continues unchecked it could seriously deplete the industrial land base or, more likely, subdivide industrial land into smaller tracts which would be inadequate for relatively large -scale industrial projects. * Provision of infrastructure: Generally, development cannot occur without roads, utilities, and other public services and facilities available to serve it. The actual timing of providing the infrastructure will be a function of land use policies and funding and phasing decisions. Related issues are who pays for the improvements and when. * Maintain environmental quality: In addition to requiring concurrence of infras- tructure, the Growth Management Act requires the designation and protection of environmentally sensitive areas. * Appropriate siting and design: The policies also address the location and appear- ance of industrial uses. Presently, industrial uses are not required to submit site plans, though less intensive commercial uses are required to do so. Site plans can be Page 5 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial DRAFT 12 /16/91 important tools for improving compatibility with adjacent land uses, planning the site in a comprehensive manner which maximizes its use while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, ensuring adequate transportation access, and establishing consistent standards for design. * Light industrial development: Light industrial uses are an important, though often overlooked, part of the industrial base in Renton. Adequate provisions and policies must be in place to ensure the continued development of these uses in appropriate locations. Scenarios for the Future As long as the major industrial employers in Renton remain healthy, industrial employ- ment will continue to be a significant economic factor locally. Ten or twenty years into the future Renton may face the shifting economic base which is already occurring in other parts of the country. In the foreseeable future, however, Renton should ensure that it is positioned to accommodate and attract the type of industrial development that it desires. The industrial land use policies in this chapter are designed to provide adequate land, infrastructure, and policy direction to diversify the industrial base and ensure Renton's quality of life. * Continue importance of industrial employment: The importance and impact of large industrial employers in Renton is well documented. The future looks stable in terms of this type of employment and Renton is fortunate to be in this position. However, one of the objectives of the industrial policies is also to promote diversity in the industrial base. Steps should be taken now to explore the types of industries which can and should be attracted to Renton and how that can be done. Due to economic trends of the nation and the region, the employment base is gradually shifting from industrial to service sector jobs. What this potentially means for Renton is that as the demand for office and commercial space increases there could be greater pressure to develop industrial land for non - industrial purposes. * Provision of infrastructure: The availability of streets, utilities, recreation, and public safety services will become more critical as the amount of developable land de- creases. Paying for these improvements will also become more critical as the cost of providing services and developing land increases. The Growth Management Act provides for different funding mechanisms, including impact fees and real estate excise taxes to pay for these improvements. The key to growth, however, will be equitably balancing these costs against the benefits to the individual developer and the community at large. * Maintain environmental quality: Protection of sensitive areas such as wetlands, frequently flooded areas, aquifer recharge areas, and geologically hazardous areas is a cornerstone of the 1990 Growth Management Act. Ordinances to protect the Page 5-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial DRAFT 12 /16/91 environment and the health, safety and welfare of residents and employees in Renton will need to be revised and developed. * Require siting and design: It is just as important to industry to locate in a safe, accessible, and compatible location as it is for commercial and residential uses. Poli- cies and ordinances should be applied in such a way as to protect encroachment of industrial uses into residential areas as well as encroachment of residential uses into industrial areas. * Maintain light industrial development: Light industrial uses should be encouraged in certain areas, especially where they complement large - scale, heavy industrial uses. POLICIES INDUSTRIAL GOAL: Develop a strong industrial base in the City. I. Diversity and Stability Objective 1.0: Promote diversity and stability in the industrial base. Policy 1.1: Renton should play a leadership role in the state and regional economic and industrial development forums. Policy 1.2: Adequate amounts of land suitable for all types of industrial use should be available for future develop- ment. Policy 1.3: An appropriate mix of industrial uses should be encouraged. Policy 1.4: Industrial uses should be encouraged to concentrate in designated industrial centers. Page 5 -5 Policy 1.5: Development industrially designated lands predominantly non - industrial should be discouraged. of for uses Policy 1.6: Industries relocating to and within the city should be accommodated, when practical, in order to retain those industrial uses. Discussion: The importance of the industrial employment base is reaffirmed through these policies. They are designed to ensure that Renton will have adequate reserves of industrial land as one tool in its economic development efforts. Adequate Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial industrial land is necessary to attract new industries in an effort to expand and diversify the employment base. The policies also introduce the concept of "industrial centers." These are based on principles similar to regional shopping centers which encourage a more efficient use of land by DRAFT 12 /16/91 concentrating uses and sharing common facilities. Unlike commercial centers, industrial uses need not be attached or in a single land ownership. An industrial center provides the oppor- tunity for shared parking, recreation and amenities, mass transit facilities, and infrastructure costs. (See Figure S- 1) II. Infrastructure Objective 2.0: Make efficient use of infrastructure. Policy 2.1: Adequate infrastructure (e.g. roads, utilities, public services) should be in place prior to occupancy. Policy 2.2: Railroad transport should be encouraged as an alternative to heavy truck transport. Policy 2.3: Industrial developments should be encouraged to make greater use of the municipal airport, but only for aviation purposes (e.g. light weight express freight, business jet and charter services). Policy 2.4: The use of car pools and public transportation by workers should be encouraged (e.g. parking policies, incentives). Policy 2.5 Convenient transit stops, both along public streets and within industrial centers, should be coordinated between major employers and public transit authorities. Discussion: These policies are intended to accomplish two things: 1) make the best use of facilities and services that are already in place, and 2) ensure that new development does not occur unless there will be adequate infrastructure to serve it. III. Environmental Quality Objective 3.0: Maintain environmental quality at a level desired by the community. Policy 3.1: All industrial uses should be subject to consistent policies and performance standards for environ- mental quality. Page 5-6 Policy 3.2: Industrial sites and structures should be designed to minimize and mitigate adverse Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial environmental impacts from potential hazards created by natural or human action (e.g. fire, explosion, flood, earthquake). Policy 3.3: Adverse environmental im- pacts (e.g. pollution of water, air, or soil) should be contained and remediated at the source to the extent feasible. Policy 3.4: Local policies and regulations for hazardous materials and wastes should comply and be coordinated with federal, state, and regional policies and regulations. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 3.5: Industrial land uses which have been determined to be hazardous to the aquifer should be phased out. Policy 3.6: Storm water and other on- site run -off should be managed on -site to maintain the quality and quantity of water discharged to either ground and surface waters. Discussion: These policies are intended to protect the quality of the environment through such means as performance standards, design of sites and structures, and, for hazardous uses which cannot meet the standards, re- moval from environmentally sensitive areas. IV. Location and Site Design Objective 4.0: Site industrial uses in suitable, designated areas. Policy 4.1: Industrial uses with a synergistic relationship should be en- couraged to locate in close proximity to one another. Policy 4.2: High- impact heavy in- dustrial uses should be separated from light industrial uses if those uses do not benefit one another. Policy 4.3: Industrial centers should be sited in areas with adequate regional access to minimize their impacts on the local street network. Discussion: Location is an important factor for industrial development. Industries want good access and some assurance that incompatible uses will not be developed which could eventually force them out. Other uses, especially residential, also want to ensure that industries do not impact their neighborhoods with noise, traffic, and other nuisances and hazards. Objective 5.0: Ensure quality development in industrial areas. Policy 5.1: Site plan review should be required for all new industrial develop- Page 5 -7 ments and redevelopment to ensure a high level of quality in industrial sites. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial Policy 5.2: Parking should be located internal to the site and landscaped as appropriate to mitigate adverse visual impacts. Policy 5.3: The use of parking struc- tures should be encouraged (i.e. through incentives or similar means). Policy 5.4: Pedestrian access and facilities on industrial sites should be given a high priority (e.g. covered walkways, drop -off zones, kiosks, security lighting). Policy 5.5: Consistent standards for on -site open space and recreational facilities in industrial developments should be maintained while allowing for flexibility of design. Policy 5.6: Industrial developments should provide appropriate treatment (e.g. landscaping, improved building facade) along major arterials to mitigate adverse visual impacts. Policy 5.7: Vacant industrial sites should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to mitigate adverse visual, economic, and health /safety impacts on the surrounding area. Policy 5.8: Industrial building and site design should provide a good contextual fit to the surrounding area. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 5.9: Industrial developments may incorporate commercial uses as secondary uses on -site or encourage de- velopment of neighborhood or community commercial centers which serve the entire industrial center. Policy 5.10: Industrial centers should provide adequate buffers for less inten- sive, adjacent uses. Policy 5.11: Site design of industrial developments should be encouraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake or stream. Discussion: These policies are designed to complement the locational policies of the previous section to provide guidance for the design of industrial developments. In addition to some specific policies on parking, landscaping, mobility and amenities, these policies call for site plan review of all new development. Also included is a policy which parallels commercial policies allowing for a mixing of commercial uses which serve the indus- trial center. The center concept is important here as well because it encompasses more than one industrial use but not an entire sub -area of the city. V. Light Industry Objective 6.0: Promote the development of light industries in suitable locations. Page 5 -8 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial Policy 6.1: A ' mix of light industrial and commercial uses should be encouraged in the downtown as well as industrially designated areas. Policy 6.2: Sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage and facades; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking; storage and delivery areas) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent less intensive land uses. Policy 6.3: Uses which primarily serve other local industries should be located near those industries. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 6.4: Small -scale uses in industrial areas should be encouraged to cluster to maximize their contributions to and use of infrastructure and amenities. Discussion: Policies to this point have been directed at all types of industrial uses. This section includes policies spe- cific to light industrial to include it in the mixed use concept. These policies provide general direction on the location and compatibility of light industrial uses and are intended to stress flexibility in where they can be located. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies Following are some general strategies for addressing the key issues discussed above. More specific strategies will be developed to accompany each of the adopted policies. 1. Reaffirm the importance of industrial employment: a. determine and monitor the long term needs of industry; b. prepare a list of target industries for Renton to recruit; c. coordinate linkages between the local schools, technical colleges and universities to better match labor needs with local skills; and d. develop an ongoing program for retaining and recruiting light and heavy industries. 2. Ensure the provision of infrastructure: a. develop funding mechanisms which provide sufficient funds for the projects while distributing the cost equitably; and Page 5 -9 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Industrial DRAFT 12 /16/91 b. develop and implementing means for reducing the capacity needs (e.g. reduce congestion, alternatives to truck transport). 3. Maintain environmental quality: a. develop and enforce consistent performance standards; b. make special provisions for those industries which involve significant modifica- tions of the environment (e.g. extractive) in order to ensure long -term envi- ronmental stability and integrity; and c. develop programs and procedures to ensure local compliance and coordination with federal, state and regional environmental agencies. 4. Appropriately locate and design industrial uses: a. implement site plan requirements; b. maintain an inventory of developable industrial sites; c. maintain an adequate amount of industrially zoned land; d. develop site design standards and guidelines; and e. review and streamline existing site plan procedures. 5. Accommodate light industrial development: a. provide location criteria for mixing light industrial uses with commercial and heavy industrial uses; and b. develop site design standards and guidelines. Implementation 1. Revise the City code, as appropriate, to reflect the letter and intent of the Compre- hensive Plan. 2. Develop a database of information on commercial and industrial properties. 3. Develop a sub -area plan for the Green River Valley. Page 5 -10 CHAPTER 6 AGRICULTURE DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The major river valleys adjacent to the City of Renton contain agricultural lands which have historically been used for farming. Retention of agricultural uses is desirable in some areas to provide open space and rural residential uses. Agricultural areas are also useful as community separators between areas of higher intensity urban uses. Background The economy of the early town of Renton was based on resource industries including mining, timber and agriculture. The town served as a center for many farms located in the Green River, Cedar River and May Creek valleys and on the uplands. Agricultural soils on the valley floors, which were renewed by frequent flooding, supported significant agricultural production until urban growth and development began to supersede farms in the decades following World War II. Although the Green River valley has been substantially committed to urban development, the Cedar River and May Creek valleys have many remaining parcels of vacant land. In both cases, the valleys also contain other critical areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, wildlife habitat and aquifers which can be impacted by high density urban development. The valleys are natural open space corridors that provide physical and visual separation from adjacent urban uses. For the most part, these vacant lands are located outside the existing Renton city limits. Existing Conditions Agricultural lands are defined in the Growth Management Act as lands with soil capability classifications I -IV (established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service), and associated areas that are physically or functionally related to these lands, or of local or historical importance for agricultural uses. An inventory of lands in these classifications indicates that prime agricultural lands are found almost exclusively in the Green River Valley, May Creek Valley, and Maple Valley. Although the Green River Valley has already been committed to higher intensity urban uses for many years, most of the May Creek Valley and Maple Valley adjacent to the City boundaries remain in very low density uses or with vacant lands. Average parcel sizes also remain relatively large, averaging 8 -10 acres in the May Creek Valley and up to 30 acres in Maple Valley. Page 6 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Agriculture DRAFT 12 /16/91 Both valleys also contain substantial acreages of critical lands as determined by inventories of wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas and aquifer protection areas. (See Map 6 -1) Trends Urban growth has increased the pressure on farmlands to redevelop in urban uses. Agricultural parcels are frequently subdivided into 5 acre or smaller tracts which are no longer useful for economically productive farming. Intrusion of sewer lines and urban roads into agricultural areas increases land values and property taxes, reducing the viability of farms. Since 1950, a substantial portion of the farmlands in King County have been lost to urban development. Although development rights for some farmlands were purchased through the King County Agricultural preservation program, these sales were voluntary and usually occurred in outlying areas. Issues Several issues are addressed by the policies: * Maintain viability of urban agriculture uses: Existing vacant large parcels on prime agricultural lands should be prevented from subdividing before the area is designated for urban growth. Subdivision in tracts less than 10 acres would create a district of suburban rather than rural scale and density, generate higher traffic levels of stormwater runoff, and split ownerships of sensitive areas. * Protect critical areas and resource lands: The May Creek and Cedar River valleys are areas with a significant confluence of sensitive lands. Retaining agricultural and open space uses in these areas will allow protection of these lands and provide economic land uses. * Encourage a rural residential lifestyle: Many agricultural uses are not compatible with suburban or rural residential uses. Districts containing agricultural uses should encourage compatible commercial agricultural uses and reduce semi - industrial agricultural uses near residential or sensitive areas. Scenarios for the Future Agricultural areas will continue to convert to urban developments if they are not protected in some manner. Premature subdivision of these areas could preclude both the survival of urban agricultural uses and an efficient use of the land if it does convert to urban uses at some future point. Page 6 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Agriculture JOLICIES DRAFT 12 /16/91 AGRICULTURAL GOAL: Maintain a semi -rural environment and agricultural uses in areas with prime agricultural lands or open space potential which have not yet been committed to urban development. L Rural Residential Environment Objective 1.0: Encourage rural residential uses with accessory agricultural uses. Policy 1.1: Allow limited farming uses on small residential tracts. Discussion: Many small parcels already exist in agricultural areas. Above a minimum size and with appropriate regulation of animals and farming practices, these parcels can continue to be used for hobby farming and rural residences. Policy 1.2: Minimize impacts of animal and crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams and rivers. Discussion: Good agricultural practices discourage animal grazing in sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands and stream banks because of potential damage to vegetation and stream banks. Implementing ordinances should manage the number of animals and access to streams to prevent degradation of wildlife habitat and vegetation. Policy 1.3: Control scale and density of accessory buildings and barns to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. II. Commercial Agriculture Objective 2.0: Maintain existing commercial agricultural uses or encourage development of agricultural uses in areas with prime agricultural lands which have been historically farmed. Policy 2.1: Limit subdivision of agricultural lands into parcels which are not economically viable for farming. Discussion: Many agricultural uses create noise, odors, waste and Page 6 -3 transportation impacts which are not compatible with residential uses or public recreational uses. Uses such as food processing, milling, meatpacking and feedlots should be prohibited. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Agriculture DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 2.2: Prohibit commercial Policy 2.4: Control impacts of crop agricultural uses which are industrial or and animal raising on surface and semi - industrial in nature. groundwater. Policy 2.3: Regulate access of domestic animals to shorelines and wetlands. III. Open Space Objective 3.0: Incorporate agricultural areas into Community Separators to maintain open space and protect critical areas. Policy 3.1: Designate areas with prime agricultural lands as Community Policy 3.3: Encourage public and Separators. private recreational uses in agricultural areas. Policy 3.2: Minimize impacts of resource uses in critical areas. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies The agricultural policies will accomplish the following in the implementation of the plan: 1. Maintain viability of urban agricultural uses: Many agricultural uses remain viable on tracts 10 acres in size or larger. Establishment of tracts of this size would hold lands in reserve while protecting sensitive natural areas and existing farming uses. Tracts 10 acres in size or larger are eligible for Current Use Taxation which could be used to reduce the impact of property taxes. 2. Protect critical areas and resource lands: Agricultural areas are natural candidates as Community Separators, particularly in combination with rivers, streams, and critical areas such as wetlands and geologically hazardous areas. Agricultural uses create open spaces while maintaining private uses of property. 3. Encourage a rural residential lifestyle: Large agricultural tracts offer the option for commercial or hobby farming as an alternative to suburban or urban living Page 6-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Agriculture DRAFT 12 /16/91 environments. Some job opportunities may also be provided in crop harvesting and animal husbandry. Implementation The policies will be implemented through the following documents: 1. Designate existing or potential agricultural areas as Community Separators. 2. Establish Rural Conservation or G -1 zoning in areas with prime agricultural lands. 3. Minimize impacts of higher density urban uses on agricultural areas through SEPA and other regulations. 4. Approve Current Use Taxation on tracts ten acres or larger in size that will be maintained in agricultural uses or open space. CHAPTER 7 OPEN SPACE AND PARKS DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The open space and park policies address parks, trails, public rights -of -way, public and private open space and other undeveloped areas. The policies are concerned with en- suring that an adequate open space system exists in Renton now and in the future. Background What exactly does open space mean? Open space is the trails and undeveloped areas which create an inter - connected system throughout the City. These lands include parks, from large regional parks such as Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to smaller neighborhood parks such as Jones Park. Open space is the undevelopable portions of environmentally sensitive lands. Open space is the natural areas, ravines and creek beds located throughout the City. Open space is also the undeveloped portions of private property and public rights -of- way. Open space also means views down public streets, golf courses, trails, railroad rights -of -way, power lines, water easements, and cemeteries. Open space is undevel- oped streets on Renton's steep slopes that break the continuity of development. Open space is also numerous public facilities such as schools, substations and reservoirs which provide opportunities ranging from active recreation facilities to passive greenery as a sidelight to their primary function. Existing Conditions The City of Renton is the primary provider of park and recreation facilities in the Ren- ton planning area. This includes parks, indoor facilities, open space areas and recre- ation programs. Other suppliers that provide service include King County and several private enterprises. Renton currently has a strong parks and recreation program which incorporates several major open space holdings. The existing park and trail system are well planned and maintained. These parks and trails make use of their special locations and offer a rich variety of water - related recreational opportunities and scenic beauty. Both Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and the Cedar River Trail are outstanding examples. Coulon Park is considered one of the finest parks in the Northwest. This facility at- tracts over one million people annually. The Cedar River Trail, which stretches for more than two miles, is a continuous bike and pedestrian trail linking various activity Page 7 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks DRAFT 12 /16/91 centers. There are spots for picnics, fishing, jogging, strolling, or resting along the trail. The City of Renton also owns undeveloped park land along both the May Creek and Honey Creek watersheds. These lands are being protected because of the steep slopes and waterways which define these watershed areas. The Maplewood Golf Course, which is located along the Cedar River watershed, is also an important part of the Renton's park system. In 1989, the City of Renton's park property (including parks, open space and golf course) amounted to 608.49 acres. This represents 5.9 percent of the City's total land area. The City also has a number of private open spaces protected by dedication to home- owners associations and /or set aside as part of development approvals. These areas are intended to provide amenities within a subdivision or multifamily development. Other open space resources within the City include the existing landscaped portions of City streets, and unimproved street and utility rights -of -way. Trends Three trends are evident in Renton today: 1) urbanization - conversion of more land, thus leaving less private open space; 2) population increase - pressure for more park and recreation facilities; and 3) pressure for more preservation of land. During the last part of the 1980s there was an increase in the population of Renton and the unincorporated area surrounding the City. The number of work places within the City has also increased. As a result of this growth, vacant land was converted to de- velopment. Vacant land not in public ownership or protected by land use regulation is rapidly disappearing as the City matures. In addition, the value of the remaining open land is increasing. In response to this situation, Renton is developing an ambitious open space acquisition program within the Department of Community Services. The program's main goals are to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural areas in an urban environment and to af- ford public access to these areas with limited development and disturbances. Many of the sites will remain relatively undisturbed, while wildlife and habitat areas that are less fragile will be more developed and allow greater public access. Page 7 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks Issues DRAFT 12 /16/91 The Open Space policies address several issues related to the development and mainte- nance of a dynamic open space system. * Serve parks and open space needs of future population: The number of resi- dences and work places within the City of Renton has increased in the past ten years. As a result, the amount of available vacant land has been severely reduced and the value of land throughout the City has increased. Sufficient amounts, types and loca- tions of open space are needed to meet the needs of future generations resulting from growth in residential, neighborhood, commercial, downtown and industrial areas. * Evaluate sensitive areas: Much of Renton's remaining natural areas are environ- mentally sensitive and include areas with unstable soils, steep slopes, native plants, wetlands, areas within flood plains and wildlife habitats. Environmentally sensitive lands need to be carefully evaluated for possible open space acquisition. In addition, other sites located along hillsides, ravines and other undeveloped areas which were once considered "unbuildable" are now subject to development pressures. Increased land values, and new building technologies have made it financially and technologically feasible to develop these previously unbuildable sites. When development does occur on these parcels frequently a portion of the site is required to remain in open space be- cause of environmentally sensitive features. * Maintain a pleasing urban form: Open space plays an important role in maintain- ing a pleasing urban form. Topographic conditions, the presence of bodies of water, and the integration of the built environment with these natural features all contribute to Renton's special identity. Even though natural features physically separate one area from another, they also make possible visual contact between distant parts of the City. Open space provides buffers between incompatible land uses such as industrial centers and residential neighbor- hoods. Open space promotes and maintains the visual identity of separate and distinct districts by relieving the monotony of urban sprawl. Open space provides visually pleasing natural amenities in an urban environment. In heavily developed areas, even small amounts of open space have a major impact on lo- cal identity because of their special character and the contrast they provide with the sur- rounding built environment. Spaces that are public and highly visible provide a com- mon point of reference, a means of orientation within an area, and create a focus to which people and activities are drawn. Views outward to surrounding areas also pro- vide orientation and offer relief from the congested conditions of densely developed ar- eas. * Meet the recreation needs of the population: Americans have more leisure time today than a generation ago. People are pursuing both active and passive leisure time Page 7 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open space and Parka • DRAFT 12 /16/91 activities in ever increasing numbers. The increased demand has placed new burdens upon our existing parks, recreation facilities, trails and open space areas from Renton residents and workers alike. The City needs to assess its existing facilities and seek to increase the open space system wherever possible. Scenarios for the Future * Accommodate the future growth of Renton's Population: Whether Renton is able to provide enough parks and open spaces for its future population may depend on whether land can be acquired now prior to urbanization. If Renton waits too long to develop an open space system it will either have a shortfall of quality lands and facili- ties, or it will have to pay a premium price for remaining undeveloped land. * Evaluate Sensitive Areas: The environmentally sensitive areas in the City may overlap with open space lands to an even greater degree in the future. Remaining un- developed lands which are environmentally sensitive could be included in a future open space network, or they could become developed. * Maintain a Pleasing Urban Form: Whether the City retains its existing natural forms, views, vegetation and distinctive neighborhoods as urbanization occurs will be an important determination of the City's future character. The City now appears fairly "green" despite the density of development due to the presence of urban open spaces, undeveloped land and significant open space vistas. The pattern of future development and the location of future open areas will determine whether this existing character is preserved. * Meet the Recreation Needs of the Population: The future population of Renton will need more developed park and recreation facilities. These facilities could be pro- vided by more densely developing existing parks holdings, or they could be accommo- dated on new lands. Currently the City does not develop all of its park lands for recreational purposes. However, in the absence of an acquisition program pressure could mount for development of existing public lands for active recreation. Page 7-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks POLICIES DRAFT 12 /16/91 OPEN SPACE AND PARKS GOAL: Develop and maintain a diverse open space network. I. Open Space System Objective 1.0: The open space network should include public lands such as parks, public open space, trails, environmentally sensitive areas, private open spaces, public rights -of -way, waterways and visual open spaces. Objective 2.0: The function of the open space network should be to: a) preserve land resources; b) provide relief from urban development; c) maintain a habitat for wildlife; d) provide physical access and visual connection within the City; and e) define the form of the City. Objective 3.0: Adequate open space lands should be preserved to meet the needs of present and future generations. Objective 4.0: Multiple open space uses should be provided on lands whenever fea- sible. Discussion: The intent of these policies is to create a system of open space which includes public lands such as parks, trails and public undeveloped land, but which also includes variety of other types of lands. Examples in- clude: land which fulfills open space area requirements in private develop- ments, undeveloped portions of sensitive areas, undeveloped portions of city rights -of -way, landscaped boulevards, certain urban areas such as plazas or sidewalks, and major landmarks or i Page 7 -5 vistas which provide visual relief within the urban environment. The concept of an open space network includes the notion that the available open space would function together to create a sum greater than its parts and that, where possible, the pieces of the system would be either visually or physically con- nected through the use of an intercon- nected trail system. The term "open space" is used broadly in this context to mean lands with a ............ Public Parks and Recreation System Figure 7-1 111111 I,Il,SOI,1111 llllll c:C • LO Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks high amenity value. These lands are either natural areas which are free from development, or developed areas which incorporate landscaping or architec- tural features which break up the devel- opment pattern of the City and provide a feeling of openness. The following types of lands are exam- ples of the variety of lands which should be preserved as part of the open space network. a) Natural areas and natural fea- tures with scenic, environmental or recreational value; DRAFT 12 /16/91 b) Lands that may provide public access to creeks, rivers, and lakes; c) Lands that define the boundaries of urban and rural communities; d) Lands that visually or physically connect natural areas or provide important linkages for recre- ation, and plant communities, and wildlife habitat (i.e. utility right -of -way, water easements); e) Lands valuable for active and passive recreation; f) Lands which are environmen- tally sensitive; and School sites. g. II. City and County Open Space Lands A. Parks and Recreation Objective 5.0: Develop and maintain a system of high quality parks and recreation facilities should be developed and maintained to serve Renton residents. Policy 5.1: The park system should include neighborhood, community and regional parks with sufficient acreage and facilities to meet standards adopted by the Renton Parks Commission. Policy 5.2: Public landholdings should be increased when population projec- tions indicate growth within the ur- ban /rural boundary. Sufficient park land should be acquired in anticipation of growth to adequately meet future demand for park services. Policy 5.3: New park facilities should be developed when parks are not lo- cated close enough to population centers and when existing holdings cannot feasibly be developed or redeveloped with needed facilities. Policy 5.4: Recreation facilities should be provided based on surveys of user demand and adopted standards. Policy 5.5: Existing parks should be more intensely developed to provide needed recreation facilities where fea- sible. Policy 5.6: Existing undeveloped park lands should be evaluated to determine the feasibility of accommodating needed facilities within them. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks Policy 5.7: Public /private and multi - jurisdictional partnerships should be entered into to provide park and recre- ation services. Discussion: The intent of these policies is to provide guidelines to prioritize the City's future parks, recreation and pub- lic open space acquisition programs. These policies will be implemented B. Trails DRAFT 12 /16/91 through the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan. Detailed analysis of the existing and proposed future parks and recreation system is found in this document. (See Figure 7 -1) Objective 6.0: Develop and maintain a comprehensive trails system which provides non - motorized access tr roughout the City, maximizes public access to open space ar- eas, and provides increased recreational opportunities for the public. Policy 6.1: The trail system should serve local and regional users and be linked to the regional trail system. Policy 6.2: Trails should provide for the needs of a diverse population of users including groups such as adults, children, seniors, workers, the handi- capped, and people engaging in either passive and /or active pursuits including: a) pedestrians b) bicyclists c) joggers /runners d) equestrians (in outlying areas) e) bicycle commuters Policy 6.3: The trail system should be recognized and maintained by the City as distinct from informal or private pathways. Policy 6.4: Informal or private path- ways should form a secondary system with linkages to the public system. These trails should be developed and maintained under joint public /private partnership. ✓ Policy 6.5: Linkages should be pro- vided with surrounding communities, within major regional corridors such as the Cedar River, Green River and the Lake Washington Loop, and the Soos Creek Trail. Page 7 -7 Policy 6.6: Within the City, linkages should be provided between residential areas, employment centers, commercial and service areas, and recreation areas. Discussion: The trails program for the City will be implemented through the Trails Master Plan. The intent of these policies is to provide a link between the trails program and the Land Use Ele- ment of the comprehensive plan. Addi- tional trails policies are also included in the transportation policies chapter of the Land Use Element. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks C. Public Open Space DRAFT 12 /16/91 Objective 7.0: Expand the City's open space network as population and employment density increase. Policy 7.1: The City should place its emphasis on acquiring open space that is either archeologically, or environ- mentally sensitive or unique, or can fill a gap in the existing open space net- work. Policy 7.2: The City should give pri- ority to land acquisitions which pre- serve natural resource areas or environmentally sensitive areas, provide wildlife habitat or provide relief from urban development. Policy 7.3: Where feasible, public ac- cess into public open space areas should be encouraged. Where appropriate, archeologically or environmentally sensitive areas should be protected from intrusion. Policy 7.4: Structures should be min- imized within public open space areas. Policy 7.5: Management plans for mis- cellaneous dedicated lands should be developed. Policy 7.6: Public open space should also include critical areas. Discussion: The intent of these policies is to create a framework to guide ex- pansion of the City's open space pro- gram. The public open space program is also implemented through the Comprehen- sive Park and Recreation Master Plan. A detailed analysis of existing holdings, projected needs standards and a pro- posed open space acquisition program is included in this document. The open space included in this program includes undeveloped natural areas and critical areas. III. Critical Areas Objective 8.0: Private open space comprised areas, should be recognized as part of the open Policy 8.1: Private open space should primarily benefit the adjacent private development. Policy 8.2: Private open space should function as a project amenity providing a buffer between land uses, shaping ur- of the undevelopable portion of critical space network. ban form, maintaining wildlife habitat and providing visual relief for the de- veloped part of sites with critical areas. Policy 8.3: Where these open space areas can form a link in the community- wide system of trails, natural areas, and Open Space in Critical Areas : 7-8A • Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks wildlife corridors, public access should be encouraged. Policy 8.4: Where private open space abuts public open space, connections via trail easements should be consid- ered. Policy 8.5: Sensitive areas within pri- vate open space should be protected. Discussion: The intent of these policies is to provide direction as to how unde- veloped portions of critical areas might DRAFT 12 /16/91 be incorporated into the open space network. In the case of critical areas, the lands will be zoned for a variety of uses. Only those portions of the land where development is not feasible will remain open. Even if the amount of available land is limited, these areas are potential determinants of urban form, wildlife habitat, and visual open space. (See Figure 7 -2) IV. Secondary Open Space A. Private Residential and Commercial Open Space Objective 9.0: Encourage a system of private urban open spaces which provide relief from the built environment, contribute to the amenities of the street or provide ameni- ties for the residents of a development project. Policy 9.1: Open space areas created as part of development projects should be a functional element in the open space network providing any of the following: a) recreation, b) buffering, c) high amenity landscaping, d) public plazas, e) public view areas, f) trails available for public use, or g) wildlife corridors. Policy 9.2: Where mutually agreeable to the City and private parties, private open spaces should be connected to Page 7 -9 other elements of the open space net- work. Discussion: The intent of these policies is to include the potential open space possibilities of the various secondary open space lands throughout the City in the open spaces inventory. Open space lands in this category are those which have a primary function as some other use. Typically they are ei- ther schools, utilities, rights -of -way, roadways, or residential uses. What these uses have in common is the fact that their intended use can be carried out without using up all of the capacity of the land. The left over capacity can very often be effectively utilized as vi- Figure 7-3 STREET 17 REGULAR LOT IN DEDICATED OPEN SPACE LOT 7-9A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks sual open space, it can provide a buffer between neighborhoods or it can be developed into a trail. For example, power lines or water lines frequently can accommodate trails on the same easement. Road and railroad rights -of- way are often not fully developed. The undeveloped portions provide important green spaces in the community. B. Public and Private Rights -of -Way DRAFT 12 /16/91 In the case of residential uses, devel- opment codes often require setting aside an area of land as open space within a project. Some of these parcels are de- veloped into recreational amenities, others are open or landscaped areas that provide visual amenities. (See Figure 7 -3) Objective 10.0: The open space functions of rights -of -way should be assessed in evaluating land use and transportation decisions. Policy 10.1: Criteria should be devel- oped to evaluate which public rights -of- way are most appropriate for open space treatment. Open space consid- erations could include criteria such as the following: a) access to light and air for abut- ting property, b) whether street or alley is part of the open space character of a neighborhood, c) whether the street is a potential boulevard, or view corridor, and d) whether the street gives access to or is part of public open space. Policy 10.2: Where compatible with traffic rights -of -way and circulation needs, portions of existing streets may be considered for development of open space amenities such as small linear parks, or landscape areas. (See Figure 7 -4) Policy 10.3: A city -wide boulevard plan should be developed. Policy 10.4: A boulevard designation should be considered for roadways which are major transportation corri- dors in the City and also have the po- tential to function as open spaces. Boulevard status would indicate a higher priority for landscape, sidewalk and trail improvements which would in- crease the amenity value of the street. Boulevard status could be based on cri- teria such as: Page 7 -10 a) landscape character, b) significant views, c) linkage to other open space ele- ments, d) location in relation to scenic el- ements such as ridgelines or waterfront, and e) potential to develop a non -mo- torized transportation corridor. Policy 10.5: The open space functions of railroad and utility rights -of -way should be assessed. Open Space within Public Rights -of -Way Figure 7-4 Open Space Using Utility Rights -of -Way Figure 7-5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parka Policy 10.6: Abandoned utility and /or railroad rights -of -way should receive high priority for designation and ac- DRAFT 12 /16/91 quisition as trail and /or open space cor- ridors. (See Figure 7 -5) V. Visual Open Space Objective 11.0: Maintain the visual quality of major topographical and built features within Renton and its environs, as seen from within the City. Policy 11.1: The major view corridors and significant visual features of the City should be identified and recog- nized as part of the open space network for the community. Discussion: Prominent visual elements in the City and in the surrounding area define the edges of the urban area and focal points within the community. Renton is bounded by several dramatic topographical features including Lake Washington, Mount Rainier, the ridges of West Hill, and the Cedar River which define the community. Similarly, fea- tures such as vegetation, stand of trees, or unusual architecture define the City at a smaller scale. Although these fea- tures may not be within the City limits, they become part of the cityscape and contribute to Renton's urban form. They provide important visual relief from urban development and are part of the open space network which defines Renton. (See Figure 7 -6) STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies 1. Accommodate the future growth of Renton's population: a. acquire land and set it aside at the time long range population forecasts indicate growth in the region; b. recognize and utilize a wider range of types of lands in the open space network including portions of private lands, utility and street rights -of -way, and urban Page 7 -11 Visual Open Space Figure 7 -6 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks DRAFT 12 /16/91 open spaces such as boulevards and plazas in addition to the more traditional public open space holdings; c. maintain standards developed by the Community Services Department for the ratio of population to acres of open space land; and d. recognize the important contribution of private open space lands as part of a to- tal system of open space. 2. Include Sensitive Areas in the Open Space network: a. identify sensitive areas as high priority lands for public open space acquisition; and b. recognize undevelopable portions of privately held sensitive areas as valuable links in the open space network as visual open space, and amenities for private development, and when practical as parts of an interconnected network of open space lands. 3. Maintain a pleasing urban form: a. include open spaces such as the undeveloped portions of streets and urban plazas in the open space network; b. create a boulevard designation for major arterial roadways in the City; and c. recognize the importance of major topographical features as visual open space. 4. Meet recreation needs of the population: a. evaluate the demand for new recreation facilities as part of the total open space system. Implementation The following actions could be taken by the City to implement the strategies: 1. Develop an open space acquisition plan: The Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan published in May of 1991, describes a vision for a park and recreation system for the City of Renton. The master plan presents an assessment of current operations and facilities, a survey of recreation demand within the City, de- scribes the parks and facilities needs, and concludes with a section which summarizes park, open space and trail acquisition recommendations. Page 7 -12 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Parks DRAFT 12 /16/91 2. Designate open space target areas: The City should designate certain areas as target areas which would be highest on a priority list of additions to the open space system. The City of Renton's Park and Recreation Department's Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan includes specific proposals for high priority sites. 3. Develop a trails plan: The City should identify a system of trails to enhance the opportunities for the residents and workers of Renton and the region. The City is cur- rently working on a Trails Master Plan which will begin the implementation of this program. 4. Revise zoning code and development regulations. 5. Review street right -of -way policies. 6. Create critical areas ordinances. Page 7 -13 CHAPTER 8 ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The purpose of the environmental policies is to provide the policy background and basis for future environmental actions by the City of Renton as it attempts to balance urban- ization, economic development and natural area protection. Environmental policies ad- dress substantive issues such as development within floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes and procedural issues such as how these areas should be mapped and how they should be regulated. Environmental policies will be implemented through economic develop- ment decisions, critical areas regulations and incentives for environmental protection. Background The City of Renton exists in a distinctive natural setting, fundamentally shaped during the last million years by the forces of glaciation. As the glaciers advanced and re- treated, they deposited, compressed and leveled the soils that form the plateau areas to the east and west of the City, gouged out Lake Washington and the wide, flat flood - plain of the Green River Valley, and determined the original routes of the Cedar and Green Rivers. Existing Conditions Previous settlement of Renton has altered these natural areas so that today the Green River Valley has become a major commercial and industrial area, utilizing the flat ter- rain. The downtown is located on the old river beds, and the Cedar River itself has be- come a major area for recreation for Renton citizens. Trails, fishing, water sports such as rafting and swimming occur along this prominent natural feature. The plateau areas hold major residential neighborhoods and remnants of large gravel deposits. These de- posit areas may contribute to future urban development once they are reclaimed and restored. (Other mineral deposits, such as hard rock, and silica sand may be economi- cally viable for later extraction in the sphere of influence area directly outside the City limits.) Abundant views and green wooded areas characterize the hillsides encircling the downtown and along the Cedar River and May Creek. Other natural resources in- clude lakes, springs, rivers, creeks, wetlands, and the sole source aquifer, Renton's municipal water supply. Along with the natural resources bestowed upon the City by the glaciers, a wide range of natural hazards also exist as a legacy from the same glaciers. Some of these hazards pose extreme threats to property and life, while others pose a risk for increased public Page 8 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental DRAFT 12 /16/91 expenditures and environmental degradation. Such hazards include: floodplains, steep slopes, erosion and seismic areas, abandoned coal mine and landslide areas. Maps of Renton's critical areas and resource areas are included at the end of this Chapter. (See Maps 8 -1 through 8 -13) Trends As the City of Renton grew, many of those portions of the City which have natural features were passed over for land more easily developed. Now, with the amount of easily developable land diminishing, the natural areas are becoming more attractive for urban uses. In addition, the development within the City's sphere of influence and within the City itself has contributed to some environmental changes. Because of the increase in im- pervious surfaces and land clearing, run -off has increased, and subsequently flooding has also increased in downstream areas. Streams and rivers have experienced increased siltation from erosion resulting in flooding and delta formations. While no seismic events of any magnitude have occurred, some areas of Renton with higher seismic risks than others could be affected in the future. Additional inappropriate development in these areas could pose a public safety risk in future seismic events. The historical coal mines of the area were never carefully documented and many abandoned mine shafts exist in areas which will likely be used for urban growth. Finally, each year the City has landslides which threaten private property, and damage roads and other utilities. Issues Without the policies and implementation strategies in this document, the City's contin- ued development will promote additional erosion, flooding, possible aquifer contami- nation, landslides, siltation and wetlands impacts. Under the policies, the following is- sues would be addressed: * Protect the City's sole source aquifer: City residents depend on the aquifer for 90% of their drinking water. Without protection, the aquifer could become unusable and force the City to be dependent upon another source. Potable drinking water sources are becoming scarce within the region. * Promote economic development: The policies provide for wetland filling and reuse in the Green River area and other smaller areas of the City increasing the development potential of parcels fully served by infrastructure. However, values and functions performed by the wetlands must be duplicated either on -site or off -site, protecting the natural wetland systems. * Protect critical areas which could result in unacceptable public or private risk and costs: Some areas can be built upon but would require large expenditures during Page 8 -2 J _.._. __.,.... V..r�vi.n!�✓m +vYr,�.rRaK:iJ:::.if k'i!:'4• ?i Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental ;iY.t!Il^.M��fM DRAFT 12 /16/91 the construction process and afterwards for maintenance. Other areas could be built upon, but could pose an unacceptable risk for downstream or downslope property own- ers. The policies establish appropriate development guidelines for these areas. * Protect other critical areas according to their risks and hazards: The policies note that critical areas should be regulated according to their risks. Hazardous areas are more closely regulated while others have guidelines and incentives to provide envi- ronmental protection. * Protect against the increase of surface water run -off and additional flooding and water quality problems: The policies note that surface water should be kept at existing levels (prior to development levels). This is to ensure that all surface water run -off should be contained on site with commensurate water quality protection measures. Scenarios for the Future Environmental protection is often discussed as an opposing scenario against economic development and urban growth. Renton, like most Puget Sound communities, is desig- nated as a urban area with the potential for future urban growth and economic devel- opment. In addition, under the Washington State Growth Management Act, Renton must provide protection for its critical natural areas. While some regard this as a para- dox with no solution, the City of Renton believes a balance can be struck between pro- viding economic development potential and protecting the environment. The City has chosen a scenario which recognizes the availability of existing infrastruc- ture and public and private investment and encourages development of these areas, with appropriate environmental protection. For areas which are less developable due to high public risks and costs, the policies provide for environmental protection commensurate with the risk. In addition, the Land Use Element envisions increased development in selected areas, such as the downtown, to help offset losses of critical areas Page 8 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental POLICIES DRAFT 12 /16/91 ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL: Continued protection of Renton's natural systems, natural beauty and environmental quality. I. General Objectives Objective 1.0: Protect and enhance environmental quality through land use plans and patterns, surface water management programs, park master programs, development re- views, incentive programs and work with citizens, land owners and public and private agencies. Objective 2.0: Encourage community development patterns and site planning that maintains and enhances natural systems, forms and open spaces. Objective 3.0: Prevent development on lands where development would create hazards to life, property, or environmental quality. Discussion: Clustering, preservation of significant natural features, and vegetated corridors are examples of development patterns that implement this objective. II. Surface Water Objective 4.0: Protect and enhance water quality of surface water resources. Policy 4.1: Manage water resources for multiple uses including recreation, fish and wildlife, flood protection, erosion control, water supply, energy production and open space. Policy 4.2: Minimize erosion and sedimentation by requiring appropriate construction techniques and farming practices. Policy 4.3: Limit discharges of pollu- tants such as chemicals, insecticides, pesticides and other hazardous wastes to surface waters. Page 8-4 Discussion: The quality of surface water resources is important for the City of Renton for public health and safety reasons, as well as recreational and environmental reasons. Surface water pollution may ultimately mean aquifer pollution. In addition, the sur- face water resources are important for citizens as amenities and recreational areas. High water quality can be achieved through the use of Best Management Practices for industries and businesses. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental Preservation of riparian corridors can protect receiving waters from storm water effects such as erosion and sedimentation. Construction practices are also an important means of protecting surface waters. Limiting erosion and sedimentation during construction periods will aid in the DRAFT 12 /16/91 protection of surface waters. Further protection of surface water will come through aquifer protection policies and ordinances, which could limit discharges of pollutants. Land uses are suggested in the plan which will also address surface water impacts. III. Rivers and Streams Objective 5.0: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and in- termittent stream courses. Policy 5.1: Maintain the City's rivers, creeks and intermittent stream courses in their natural state wherever feasible. Policy 5.2: Degraded channels and banks should be rehabilitated by public programs and new development. Policy 5.3: Develop land use regula- tions which establish and enhance set- backs along all waterways and intermit- tent stream courses. The purpose of the setbacks would be to retain and enhance the natural vegetation for infiltration, maintenance of wildlife habitat and normal water temperatures, filtration, and the retardation of run -off and ero- sion. Policy 5.4: If crossings and /or access is required across fishbearing river and stream channels, improvements should be made in the following priority: 1. Crossings and bridges which access several properties. 2. If crossings and brides are not feasible, culverts could be used which are oversized and have gravel bottoms which maintain the channel's width and grade. Discussion: The rivers and streams within the City hold great importance for the citizens. These waterways can be protected through three measures: preservation of their courses, their banks, and the vegetation next to them. For areas that have already been de- graded, all efforts should be made to restore them. For new areas, the natu- ral systems should be protected. For example, the use of closed pipe drainage systems for streams in devel- opments should be prohibited except where no other feasible alternative ex- ists and where the closed system will not cause any significant degradation of water quality or habitat. Page 8 -5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental DRAFT 12 /16/91 IV. Wetlands Objective 6.0: Preserve wetland functions and values for overall system functioning. Policy 6.1: Achieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining significant wet- lands base. Policy 6.2: Pursue all potential funding sources in order to purchase significant wetlands based on their values and functions. Policy 6.3: When development may impact wetlands, the following hierar- chy should be followed when deciding the appropriate course of action: a. avoid impacts to the wetland, b. minimize impacts to the wet- land, c. restore the wetland when im- pacted, d. recreate the wetland functions and values at a ratio which pro- vides increased functions and values. Policy 6.4: Provide a ranking system for wetlands based on their acreage, values and functions. High quality wetlands should have more protection under this system. Policy 6.5: In no case should devel- opment activities decrease either net acreage values or functions of existing wetlands. Policy 6.6: Provide incentives for an overall net gain of wetland functions and values of new development. Page 8-6 Policy 6.7: Water level fluctuations in wetlands used as part of storm water detention systems should be similar to the fluctuations under natural condi- tions. The utilization, maintenance, and storage capacity provided in existing wetlands should be encouraged. Policy 6.8: Encourage public access to wetlands for use when sensitive habitats are protected. Discussion: The City has over 350 acres of wetlands at the time of this writing. These wetlands provide flood storage, wildlife habitat, water quality protection, water quantity or infiltration, aesthetic relief, erosion and sedimentation control, and pollutant removal. In some areas of the City, the natural functioning of these wetlands is integral to protection of properties from flooding. These policies are intended to provide the basis for wetland preserva- tion while still encouraging appropriate development. The policies also provide for the improvement of degraded sys- tems. Some wetlands are recognized as having less value than others in the City. In the Green River Valley, some wetlands are isolated, perched on fill, and pro- vide minimal habitat functions. Other wetlands in the area are high quality, fully functioning wetlands. The policies provide for a hierarchy for evaluating all wetlands. Each system is evaluated for its size, its functions and values, and its importance to the overall natural Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental system. Subsequent actions are then to be based on the importance of the wet- land. DRAFT' 12 /16/91 V. Flood Plains Objective 7.0: Protect the natural functions of 100 year floodplains and floodways. Policy 7.1: Prohibit permanent struc- tures from developing in floodways due to risks associated with deep and fast flowing water. Policy 7.2: Limit development within the 100 year floo iplain to that which is not harmed by flooding. Roads and finished floors of structures should be located above the 100 year flood level and new development should provide compensation for existing flood storage capacity due to filling. Policy 7.3: Restrict land uses to those which do not cause backwater or signif- icantly increase the velocity of floodwa- ters. Policy 7.4: New development or land modification in 100 year floodplains should be designed to maintain natural flood storage functions and minimize hazards. Policy 7.5: Incorporate design features which are intended to keep harmful substances from flood waters in any de- velopment which is allowed in the 100 year floodplain. Policy 7.6: Emphasize non - structural methods in planning for flood preven- tion and damages reduction. Policy 7.7: Dredge the Cedar River bed as one method of flood control. Discussion: Yearly floods are a reality for many members of the community. The Cedar and Green Rivers carry wa- ters from large drainage basins and ei- ther terminate in Renton or pass through Renton. The preferred methods of addressing floods are wise develop- ment practices and land use patterns, retention of water on -site and in natural systems, and finally through engineer- ing practices such as dredging and channelization. Page 8 -7 Regional impacts from outside the City limits also affect Renton in flooding events. Federal Army Corps of Engi- neers and the City of Seattle have con- trol over dams on the Cedar and Green Rivers which provide flood control. Because of this, regional coordination is addressed under these policies. (See Figure 8 -1) 100 Year Flood Plain Figure 8-1 CROSS-SECTION VIEW 4 100-Year Floodplain Flood Fringe 4 • Floodway Stream Flood Fringev, Flood elevation before encroachment on floodplain CROSS-SECTION VIEW 100-Year Floodplain Flood Fringe A 104 Enchroachment Flood Floodway Fringe .44 Flood elevation when confined within floodway Enchroachment Flood elevation before encroachment on floodplain 8-7A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental DRAFT 12 /16/91 VI. Stormwater Objective 8.0: Conduct a stormwater management program which optimizes Renton's water resources. Policy 8.1: Maintain and enhance natu- ral drainage systems to protect water quality, reduce public costs and prevent environment degradation. Policy 8.2: Preserve natural surface water storage sites that help regulate service flows and recharge groundwa- ter. Policy 8.3: Provide local funding for the stormwater program through the City's Storm Water Utility. Policy 8.4: Control quantity and qual- ity of stormwater run -off from all new development to be no greater than exist- ing conditions. Policy 8.5: Minimize on -site erosion and sedimentation during and after construction. Policy 8.6: Route stormwater run -off from new development to avoid gully erosion or landslides in ravines and steep hillsides. Policy 8.7: Industries and businesses should use best management practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation and to prevent pollutants from entering ground or surface waters. Policy 8.8: Implement surface water management systems which protect nat- ural features whenever feasible. Policy 8.9: Promote means of flow control, when required in waterways, that maintain the channel in as natural a state as possible. olicy 8.10: Utilize, maintain and en- hance the natural stormwater storage capacity provided in existing significant wetlands. Objective 9.0: Provide a storm and surface water control and drainage system capable of preventing threats to life, property and public safety during a 100 year flooding event. Policy 9.1: Control surface water run- off rates, to existing conditions at the time of development for all new de- velopment. Policy 9.2: Promote the return of pre- cipitation to the soil at natural rates near where it falls through the use of deten- tion ponds, grassy swales and infiltra- tion where feasible. Page 8 -8 Policy 9.3: Promote development de- sign which minimizes impermeable sur- face coverage by limiting site coverage and maximizing the exposure of natural surfaces. Discussion: With the average annual rainfall as high as it is in the City, storm water control is .an important concern. Regional and localized Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental flooding is found in downtown Renton and in the Green River Valley. While various agencies manage the rivers for flood control, large amounts of storm water from impervious surfaces con- tribute to the flooding situation. As the drainage basins continue to develop in King County and other Green River Valley cities, more storm water passes through Renton, the final downstream jurisdiction for these basins. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Engineering techniques can control much of the stormwater through deten- tion and retention systems. However, the cumulative effects of storm water can only be managed by a combination of engineering and preservation of natu- ral systems such as streams, rivers, and wetlands. These policies are intended to work in concert with the previous natural system policies. Objective 10.0: Provide for, and work toward, a regional approach to stormwater management programs. Policy 10.1: Use interlocal agreements and cooperative planning programs to coordinate, where appropriate, with King County, Tukwila, and Kent and other agencies for stormwater manage- ment. Policy 10.2: Actively participate in non -point source pollution watershed plans including those for the Cedar and Green River Basins. Discussion: These objectives recognize Renton's unique downstream position. It is only through regional cooperation that stormwater can be effectively managed. Objective 11.0: Support and sustain educational, informational and public involve- ment programs in the City over the long term in order to optimize the usage, preserva- tion and protection of Renton's water resources. Policy 11.1: Provide information for and participate in informing and educat- ing individuals, groups, businesses, in- dustry, and government in the protec- tion and enhancement of the quality and quantity of the City's water resources. Policy 11.2: Increase the community's understanding of the City's ecosystem and its relationship to water resources. Page 8 -9 Policy 11.3: Create the long term community commitment that will be necessary to sustain efforts to protect the City's water resources and maintain and improve water quality through edu- cational programs. Discussion: Individuals can aid in stormwater management through Best Management Practices at the single family home or single business level. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental DRAFT 12 /16/91 These policies provide methods of in- forming citizens of their potential roles. VII. Ground Water Resources Objective 12.0: Ensure the long -term protection of the quality and quantity of the groundwater resources of the City of Renton in order to maintain a safe and adequate potable water supply for the City. Policy 12.1: Designate and protect areas of critical recharge within the City and the sphere of influence through co- ordination with surrounding jurisdic- tions. Policy 12.2: Emphasize the use of open ponding and detention, grassy swales, clean roof run -off and other stormwater management techniques that maximize water quality and infiltration where appropriate and which will not endanger groundwater quality. Policy 12.3: Acquire the most sensitive lands such as wetlands and flood plains for conversion to parks and greenbelts. Discussion: In 1988, the Environmen- tal Protection Agency designated the Cedar River aquifer as a sole source aquifer for the potable water for the City of Renton. 98% of the City's wa- ter supply comes from that aquifer or from springs in the Talbot Road area. Strong policies protect these supplies through a variety of methods, including protection of natural systems and care- ful regulation of development in sensi- tive aquifer areas. The polices also provide for the City to play a strong regional role in aquifer protection, since surrounding jurisdictional actions could compromise or even destroy aquifer production. In addition, the policies provide for the City to identf and protect other associated aquifers which affect the sole source designated aquifer. Objective 13.0: Increase the participation by the City of Renton in resolution of re- gional ecological issues that may impact aquifer protection. Policy 13.1: Promote the use of inter - local agreements with other agencies to restrict land use in sensitive aquifer recharge areas to minimize possible sources of pollution and the potential for erosion, and to increase infiltration. Page 8 -10 Policy 13.2: Actively participate in regional highway planning, construc- tion, and traffic restrictions. Policy 13.3: Discourage the continued use of, and hauling of waste to, the Cedar Hills landfill through the City of Renton. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental Policy 13.4: Participate in land use and sewerage decisions in outlying areas of the City's aquifer. DRAFT 12/16/91 VIII. Fisheries and Wildlife Resources Objective 14.0: Protect and enhance wildlife habitat throughout the City. Policy 14.1: Identify unique and sig- nificant wildlife habitat as defined by Washington State Habitat and Species Project and ensure that buildings, roads and other features locate on less sensitive portions of the site. Policy 14.2: Corridors connecting habitat should be identified and pre- served through acquisition, regulation of development proposals and other means. Policy 14.3: Encourage preservation and enlargement of existing habitat ar- eas through development incentives. Policy 14.4: Re- establish self sustain- ing fisheries resources in appropriate rivers and creeks through encourage- ment of hatcheries and salmonid use. Policy 14.5: Retain and enhance aquatic and riparian habitats by requir- ing vegetated buffers for all new devel- opment along waterway corridors. Discussion: The City of Renton, unlike many major Puget Sound cities, has several unique areas of habitat. The Cedar River supports major fish runs during the year. Springbrook Creek, Honey Creek, and May Creek also provide habitat for salmonids. The Black River forest provides habitat for over 35 species of birds, including heron and eagle, and many small mammals. The Cedar River, May Creek and Panther Creek corridors have forested, meadow, and shrub habitats that provide shelter and food for many species. Deer have been spotted migrating through the power line corridors which criss -cross the City. Besides these east -west corridors, a north -south corridor of habitat exists stretching from the Cedar River drainage to the May Creek drainage directly outside the city limits on the plateau. These policies provide for preservation of these habitats. A variety of methods could be used to implement these poli- cies: conservation easements, large lot zoning, city open space purchase and wildlife management, setbacks, reten- tion of vegetation in various areas, landscaping regulations spec jying na- tive vegetation which would provide food and shelter for wildlife. Page 8 -11 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental DRAFT 12 /16/91 IX. Process Objective 15.0: Environmentally sensitive areas should be identified and regulated to protect life and property according to the severity of the natural hazards. Policy 15.1: The following should be considered in designating and control- ling environmentally sensitive sites: a) critical areas and resource lands inventory; b) steep slopes drainage swales, lakes, wetlands, bogs, streams, rivers, or other surface water bodies; c) unstable or water bearing soils; d) unique flora and unique fauna; e) historic and archeological sites; and f) unique natural features. Policy 15.2: Maintain an inventory of environmentally sensitive areas includ- ing descriptions of criteria for designa- tion and maps. Policy 15.3: Critical areas, those envi- ronmentally sensitive areas which pose the most threat to life and property should be regulated for limitations on uses, densities, clearing, grading and vegetation removal. These areas appear on the Land Use Element Map as Criti- cal Corridors. Policy 15.4: Designate setbacks around environmentally sensitive areas to pro- tect both the areas and the users. Policy 15.5: Establish and maintain a secondary system of corridors to protect agriculture, timber, forest lands, and wildlife habitat and to provide linkages between critical areas. Policy 15.6: Encourage preservation of these secondary corridors through in- centives and regulations which will provide for public health and safety, and provide visual relief from urban structures and development. Policy 15.7: Where appropriate com- bine all critical corridors and environ- mentally sensitive areas with recre- ational facilities to provide public ac- cess and trail linkages through separa- tors. Policy 15.8: The final identification of environmentally sensitive or critical ar- eas, hazardous sites or portions of sites should be established during the review of project proposals. Policy 15.9: A review process should be established to make any changes in the inventory of environmentally sensi- tive areas. Discussion: These policies provide an integrated approach for the regulation and management of environmental areas based on the value of the resource and /or the severity of the hazards. The maps reveal that several of the critical areas often occur simultaneously and provide wildlife habitat if lands are un- developed. The policies envision a two tiered approach to these areas: the most hazardous should be designated as criti- cal corridors; the second as environ- mentally sensitive and should include Page 8 -12 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental agriculture, mineral, forest lands, and wildlife habitat not associated with a critical area. Regulations and land use designations could be provided to these DRAFT 12/16/91 two groups allowing for development where appropriate. X. Atmospheric Conditions Objective 16.0: Protect and promote clean air and minimize individual and cumulative noise impacts to healthful levels. Policy 16.1: Maintain high air quality standards through efficient land use patterns. Policy 16.2: Promote air quality through reduction in emissions from in- dustry, traffic, commercial and resi- dential uses. Policy 16.3: Limit noise from con- struction activities to reasonable hours of the day and days of the week. Policy 16.4: Limit the use of public address systems to ensure that noise does not spill over to adjacent land uses and activities on a daily basis. Policy 16.5: Ensure that the design, placement and use of any on -site equipment, such as air conditioning units or other equipment is accom- plished in a manner which minimizes noise impacts on adjacent land uses and activities. Discussion: Clean air and acceptable noise levels are necessary for healthful living in an urban society. These poli- cies address the desire to protect residents from unacceptable impacts. XI. Steep Slopes, Landslide, and Erosion Hazards Objective 17.0: Protect steep slopes, landslide and erosion hazard areas from impacts from use and development. Policy 17.1: Land uses on steep slopes should be designed to prevent property damage and environmental degradation, and to enhance greenbelt and wildlife habitat values by preserving and en- hancing existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. Page 8 -13 Policy 17.2: Allow land alteration only for approved development proposals or approved mitigation efforts that will not create unnecessary erosion, undermine the support of nearby land, or unneces- sarily scar the landscape. Policy 17.3: As slope increases, devel- opment intensity, site coverage and vegetation removal should decrease to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental mitigate problems of drainage, erosion, siltation and landslides. Slopes of 40% or more should be retained in a natural state, free of structures and roads. Policy 17.4: High landslide areas should be free of development and roads. Policy 17.5: In areas subject to erosion hazards, native ground cover should be retained or replaced after construction, special construction practices should be used, and allowable site coverage may need to be reduced to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Limitations on the time when site work can be done may also be appropriate. Policy 17.6: Incorporate design ele- ments which preserve and enhance the natural drainage system into develop- ments in an effort to control erosion and sedimentation. DRAFT 12/16/91 Policy 17.7: Design, locate and con- struct utility systems in a manner which will preserve the integrity of the exist- ing land forms, drainage ways and nat- ural systems. Discussion: Renton is located in a geographically unique area. The walls of the plateaus and river valleys contain both steep and erosive conditions. Nu- merous landslides create costs borne by the public agencies every year and pri- vate owners often suffer property dam- age from these same events. Due to the high annual rainfall and soil conditions, erosion damage can occur on relatively level areas as well as steep ones. These policies set up standards which will protect public health, safety and welfare and allow development to proceed in appropriate areas. XH. Seismic Areas Objective 18.0: events. Reduce the potential for damage to life and property due to seismic Policy 18.1: In areas with high seismic hazards, special building design and construction measures should be used to minimize the risk of structural damage, fire and injury to occupants, and to pre- vent post- seismic collapse. Policy 18.2: Prior to development in high seismic hazard areas, builders should conduct special studies to evalu- ate seismic risks and should use appro- priate measures to reduce the risks. Discussion: The Puget Sound region has an overall susceptibility to seismic events. Within the City of Renton some areas have a higher potential for damage than others. In order to protect the public, differential standards for development are set up through the policies. Pege 8 -14 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental DRAFT 12 /16/91 XIII. Coal Mine Hazards Objective 19.0: Reduce the potential for damage to life and property due to aban- doned coal mines, and return this land to productive uses. Policy 19.1: Identify areas which may be impacted by abandoned coal mines. Policy 19.2: Land use plans and zon- ing should reflect the hazards to devel- opment in identified areas. Policy 19.3: Land uses may locate in coal mine hazard areas, provided the hazards are precisely located, all signif- icant hazards associated with the mines are eliminated, maldng the site as safe as a site which has not been previously mined. Policy 19.4: The location of coal mine hazards should be shown on any plat or site plan maps and such documents should be recorded. Discussion: The City of Renton has a long and rich history of coal mining. Most mining ceased by the end of World War II but the mines still remain. Some entrances have not been properly sealed; some shafts present potential for collapse; some areas may generate methane gas. These hazards are often unnoticeable on the surface, but may present subterranean dangers for the property owners. These policies reflect the importance of identifying and regulating these areas. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies The following summarizes major strategies and implementation measures proposed in the plan that would be used to shape Renton's approach to critical areas. Summary of Strategies: 1. Preserve wetlands and geologically hazardous areas through ordinances and regula- tions, as well as State Environmental Policy Act reviews. 2. Encourage protection and preservation of natural areas through City acquisition of prime areas and through development incentives such as density transfers and con- servation easements. Page 8 -15 • Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental _ DRAFT 12/16/91 3. Combine natural areas with park acquisition efforts to preserve these areas for pas- sive recreational use. 4. Protect the sole source aquifer through regulations of land uses and dumping of hazardous materials. 5. Protect mineral and agricultural resource areas through large lot zoning and desig- nation of natural resource uses. Additional protection would be accomplished by notifying neighbors of the primary use of the land and the possibility of practices that are important to the resource but may be considered nuisances by other urban dwellers. 6. Identify and regulate areas which may be impacted by abandoned mines. Implementation 1. Development of an inventory and mapping of critical areas. 2. Revisions to the City's regulations to include critical areas ordinances. 3. Development of an acquisition program for open space. 4. Investigation of open space taxation breaks for areas that provide wildlife habitat and critical area protection. 5. Develop incentives and a method for density transfers and mitigation banking for wetlands. Page 8-16 Source: HDR 9/19/91 8-16A1 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS' Lakes Floodplain (City of Renton) Floodplain (King County) T Streams Rivers Highways Main Roads Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence Boundary • Generally including areas mapped by FEMA as Zone X: areas where 100 year flood waters can be less than 1 foot in depth. Note: Areae within Jurisdictions other than nC entond not shown unless mapped by 9 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/13/PW Technical Services 8 December 1991 Robert T. Hao onto. Jr. Map 8-1 tokes Associates 8/2 /R1 W64K y W54K W57K COAL CREEK TRIBUTARIES , 524K W8K a c:W6K S30K 523K \W53K s0 W 6W55K S22 20K W19K W17K ••W2OK q W18K W22KO CEMETERY RO sky AD W51K W46K V49K W5OK LAKE KATHLE oW37K LUCE DESIRE -w' SPRING LAKE k: :"r' SHADY LIKE W45K YOUNCS W42K WETLANDS RIVERS & STREAMS * Lakes Wetlands (City of Renton) Wetlands (King County) s Streams - Intermittent Streams ^ter- Rivers Highways Main Roads Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence Boundary *Wetlands and stream roach labels ahorm are referenced in the Critical Areas Inventory. Note: Areas within Jurisdictions other than Renton not shown unless mapped by King County. 6000 12000 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/PW Technical Services 9 December 1991 Robert T. Mao tints. Jr. 8-16B Map 8-2 *c Source: Geo Engineers 11/17/91 SOIL PERMEABILITY I AL Lakes High (City of Renton) Medium (city of Renton) Low (City of Renton) High (King County) Medium (King County) Streams Rivers Highways Main Roads Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence Boundary Note: Areas within other municipal jurisdictions not shown at this time. Areas within the sphere of influence show what King County has mapped. 0 6000 12000 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/PW Technical Services 4 December 1991 Robert T. Mac Onie. Jr. 8-16C Map 8-3 LONG RANGE PLANNING p/B/pW Technical Services 4 December 1991 Robert T. Mac Gale, Jr. Source: David Evans & Associates. Inc. 7/29/91 Source: Geo Engineers 11/17/81 COAL MINE HAZARDS Lakes High (City of Renton) Medium (City of Renton) CL Low (City of Renton) Hazard (Bing County) - Mine Entrance ter- Streams River! Highways Main Roads Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence Bound Note: Areas within jurisdictions other than Renton not shown unless mapped by King County. 0 6000 12000 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/PW Technical Services 6 December 1991 Robert T. Mao Onie, Jr. 8-16E Map 8-5 Source: Geo Inzineers 11/17/91 EROSION HAZARDS Lakea High (City of Renton) Low (City of Renton) High (King County) Streams Rivers Highways Main Roads Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence Boundary Nato: Areas within jurisdictions other than Renton not shown unless mapped by King County. 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/PW Technical Services 8 December 1991 Robert T. Mao Onie. 8-16F Map 8-6 King Note: my orwn byare consultants under contract with the city. Note: Kennydale landslide area not yet mapped. 8-16C Map 8-7 raN Note: Areas within Jurisdictions other than Renton not shown unless mapped by King County. 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/PW Technical Services 6 December 1991 Robert T. Mao Onie. Jr. 8-16H Map 8-8 representation, This document Source: Geo Engineers 11/17/91 COAL RESOURCES I.Akes Coal (City of Renton) Coal (King County) Streams Rivers Highways Main Roads Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence Boundary 6000 12000 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/PW Technical Services 5 December 1991 Robert T. Mac Onie, Jr. 8-16I Map 8-9 This RMS4 RMS6 Note: Areas within Jurisdictions other than Renton not shown unless mapped by King Map 8-10 Source: Geo Engineers 11/17/91. PEAT RESOURCES Lakes Peat (City of Renton) Peat (king County) Streams Rivers Highways Mair Roads Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence Boundary 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/PWF Technical Services 5 December 1991 Robert T. Mac 011ie. Jr. 8-16K Map 8-11 Source: Geo Engineers 11/17/91 8-16L ROCK RESOURCES Lakes Rock (City of Renton) Rock (King County) - Streams. Rivers Highways Main Roads Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence Boundary 1:72000 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/Plr Technical Services 5 December 1991 Robert T. Mac Onie. Jr. Map 8-12 LONG RANGE PLANNING P/B/PW Technical Services 9 December 1991 Robert T. Mao Rids, Jr. 8-1611 Map 8-13 CHAPTER 9 COMMUNITY DESIGN DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The purpose of the community design policies is to provide a vision for community identity and improvement of the aesthetic quality of the City. The policies address is- sues such as how the physical organization of neighborhoods and the downtown can create a more desirable living environment. The policies also address issues such as view protection, character of the urban streetscape, vegetation, gateways, architectural and urban design, and community separators. Background Renton has grown from a small compact town, nestled in the Cedar River and Green River Valleys, to a much larger city which now spreads across the valley floors and into the adjacent hills. Renton's nearest neighbors, Kent and Tukwila, have grown similarly. Once separated by rural areas and open space, Renton and its neighbors are now growing together and becoming part of the larger Puget Sound metropolitan region. The natural features that define the edges of the City and its neighborhoods include Lake Washington, the hills, plateau and valleys. While development over time has changed the appearance of the community, the natural features have generally remained constant. One exception to this is in the valleys where farmland and wetlands have been converted to other, more intensive uses. This is because these lands are relatively flat and less expensive to develop thus making them more attractive for uses requiring large amounts of land. Much of the development that has occurred in the valleys and the urban area over the last forty years has focused on accommodating the automobile, rather than the pedestrian. The pressures of economic growth and progress have resulted in the construction of of- fice buildings, factories, housing projects, and supporting infrastructure in the City. A network of freeways, arterials and transmission lines criss -cross the City and divide the community. Development occurring outside of the city has also affected the character of the community. Regional shopping centers competing with Renton's downtown re- tail core have resulted in a shift in marketable goods in the downtown from general merchandise to specialty items. This transition has changed the visual character of the downtown as businesses open or relocate. Page 9 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design DRAFT 12 /16/91 Many opportunities exist to focus on the unique features and character of the City and to improve its urban environment. To this end, the policies in this plan encourage a greater emphasis on community design. Existing Conditions The overall appearance and urban form of Renton today is characterized by a mixture of older traditional grid neighborhoods; small, pedestrian- oriented retail; campus -style office complexes; industrial areas; auto - oriented commercial, and suburban multi-fam- ily and single family housing development. The City as a whole is primarily low -pro- file and has little high -rise development. Natural Environment and Topography: Renton is located in a natural bowl sur- rounded by hillsides. The bowl was created as glaciers retreated thousands of years ago and rivers fed Lake Washington. The visual character of the City is further de- fined by slopes and vegetation of the hills which create visual relief and contrast with the more densely developed downtown and industrial areas. Natural features such as Lake Washington, the Cedar River corridor, and the vegetation within the City enhance the aesthetic quality of Renton. Freeway and Arterial Roadways: The freeway system is a dominant visual feature of this city. Interstate 405 and SR 167 bisect the City, create visual barriers within the community, and define the edges of districts and neighborhoods. Renton is highly visible from I -405. It is from this freeway that many people experience their first and lasting impression of the City. Major arterial roadways in the community define the neighborhoods and create a path for everyday use and travel through the City. Development patterns, plantings and ur- ban features seen from these routes give visual signals as to the character of the com- munity. Residential Development: Residential neighborhoods in Renton are concentrated in the hills and plateaus surrounding the City. In the newer neighborhoods (post 1950) community form is predominantly suburban in character and is dominated by lots which are 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in size and cul -de -sac street systems. In older ar- eas the form of the community follows a more traditional pattern with smaller lots ranging in size from 4,000 to 5,000 square feet, and a traditional grid road system. Generally, houses in residential areas are set back from the street and have a more sub- urban than urban character. Multifamily development generally takes the form of two to three -story structures at a density of 14 to 36 dwelling units per acre. Developments of this type are usually lo- Page 9 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design DRAFT 12 /16/91 cated along arterial roads, and are set back from the street in apartment or condo- minium complexes with surface rather than structured parking lots. Commercial and Industrial Development: The concentration of commercial and industrial development in central Renton and the surrounding Valley is a major deter- minant of community form. This area is a conglomerate of low - intensity commercial, residential, and industrial developments, which lacks a strong overall focus. In the outlying areas of the City, commercial development gradually spreads out east- ward along major arterials. New commercial development tends to locate in one of several strip commercial corridors rather than in the downtown. The resulting com- munity form is expressed as sprawl -type development. Trends Urban growth will probably continue to spread into the remaining rural areas and open space that now separates Renton from adjacent urban areas. As Renton's downtown grows, it is likely to remain as a relatively low - profile urban center. Destination -ori- ented specialty shopping will draw patrons from the local and regional area. Currently, the City is working in cooperation with the Downtown Renton Association to improve the urban design of the area. Commercial and industrial development within the City will continue to be primarily auto - oriented and dominated by large surface parking lots. On a city -wide basis, only modest improvements are likely to be seen in the pedestrian environment. Renton's residential areas will form loosely defined neighborhoods con- sisting primarily of a collection of housing developments. Issues The goals, objectives and policies in this section are designed to address several issues related to urban design. * Strengthen the image of the City as a separate and distinctive entity within the metropolitan region: Renton faces a dilution of its identity as a separate, distinguish- able City because of the urban growth that continues to surround it. The City may be absorbed in the urban fabric of the larger metropolitan region unless efforts are made to strengthen Renton's image, revitalize its downtown and preserve the remaining rural areas and open space that separate the City from adjacent areas. * Improve the urban environment downtown and making it a more distinctive urban center: A major issue for Renton is how to revitalize the downtown area. The economic redevelopment of the downtown is a significant strategy of this plan and is addressed in the commercial and residential policies section. However, in order to revitalize the City, greater emphasis is needed with regard to urban design improve- Page 9 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design DRAFT 12 /16/91 ments, such as landscaping, designation of gateways, and pedestrian improvements. Renton's downtown must be able to compete with nearby commercial areas to avoid decline or deterioration. * Enhance the urban environment for pedestrians: Development throughout the City is likely to be auto - oriented in the future, unless efforts are made to modify this current trend. Consequently, the City's commercial, office, and industrial areas will continue to be dominated by large surface parking lots that visually detract from the environment. Adequate access and amenities for pedestrians must be provided or else walking and the use of public transit will continue to be discouraged. * Build neighborhoods: In order to develop the sense of community and neighbor- hood identity residents would like to see, a concerted effort to "build neighborhoods" rather than a collection of housing developments is needed. Similarly, efforts to pre- serve those community features which currently provide some of the qualities held to be important in a community should be implemented before they are lost. Scenarios for the Future The policies in this section recommend the following types of solutions to the problems which have been outlined: * Strengthen the image of the City as a separate and distinctive entity within a metropolitan region: The Growth Management Act of 1990 calls for the designation of urban separator areas such as open space corridors within and between urban growth areas. One concept introduced in the community design policies that is consistent with this, is the idea of using community separators. These could consist of interconnecting natural features, parks, boulevards or utility easements to provide physical and visual distinctions within Renton and between edges of urban growth areas. The built envi- ronment also provides concentrations of built forms, density of development or popula- tion, height and open spaces which could be used as neighborhood or community sepa- rators. * Revitalize the downtown through urban design: Urban design improvements can come about through a combination of public and private efforts. Ultimately, the com- mercial center of Renton could be redeveloped as a multi-use center which acknowl- edges the pedestrian through architectural and urban design. Examples include using appropriate scale and detailing on building facades, or, designing the streetscape to be welcoming to the pedestrian. The edges of the downtown must be reinforced and cues should be given to the motorist and pedestrian to lead them into and through the area. A gateway or focal point is one way to communicate arrival into the area. Another op- portunity exists with regard to providing a linkage between the Cedar River and the Page 9-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design DRAFT 12 /16/91 downtown. Landscaping, street furnishings and building facade treatment all afford opportunities for revitalization of the downtown. * Enhance the urban environment for pedestrians: Pedestrians should above all feel safe and comfortable in a community or urban environment. In order to achieve this, the pedestrian must be clearly separated from vehicular traffic, adequate lighting and traffic signals need to be provided and the scale of signs and the built environment must recognize the pedestrian. In addition, residents should be encouraged to leave their private vehicles at home and to take convenient, affordable and comfortable transit options to the downtown core. * Build neighborhoods: Create a recognizable structure of neighborhoods which of- fer diversity in housing types and densities. Residential housing should include a range of options from larger lots to clustered development, and from detached single family homes to attached multifamily dwellings. POLICIES COMMUNITY DESIGN GOAL: Promote a distinctive community identity and an aesthetically pleasing city image. I. Community Form Objective 1.0: Provide for orderly growth of the City, while maintaining the downtown and neighborhood areas, and enhancing the City's natural features. Policy 1.1: Redevelopment of the downtown area should be encouraged to maintain and revitalize the downtown core. Policy 1.2: The character of existing residential neighborhoods should be strengthened. Policy 1.3: The City's unique natural features including landform, urban Page 9 -5 form, vegetation, and river should be protected and enhanced. Policy 1.4: A physical distinction should be created within and between Renton and adjacent communities by establishing community separators or using natural features as community separators. Discussion: These policies address the form of the community and recognize Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design that a variety of spaces and character exist. The elements that determine community character include natural features, the built environment, inten- sively developed areas, neighborhoods and vacant land. Reinforcement of community form and community charac- ter and the avoidance of continuous ur- DRAFT 12 /16/91 ban sprawl are expressed through the policies. Conununity separators are proposed as a means of defining and preserving neighborhoods and the edges of the City. 11. Urban Form Objective 2.0: Intensify Downtown Renton as the urban center, supported by a network of residential neighborhoods and strengthened by community separators. Policy 2.1: The redevelopment of downtown Renton as a multi -use urban center should be encouraged to create a focal point for the community. Policy 2.2: Strong visual linkages should be created between downtown Renton and neighborhoods using land- scaped arterial streets and connectors. Policy 2.3: Neighborhoods should be created which have human -scale fea- tures such as pedestrian pathways and public spaces (e.g. parks or plazas), and which have discernable edges, entries and borders. Policy 2.4: The character of rural areas should be retained through techniques such as clustering residential develop- ment, using open space easements, de- velopment standards, and preservation of agricultural lands. Discussion: Reinforcement of the built environment and redevelopment of the Page 9-6 downtown as the urban focus of the community are emphasized. The poli- cies also support strong visual and physical connections between the downtown and neighborhoods through the use of landscaping. Street trees planted along arterials could be used to "lead" motorists and pedestrians to /from the downtown and communities. Other street fixtures and furniture such as lighting standards, paving details, parking bays, planting strips and ban- ners could be used in a like fashion to define areas and direct residents and visitors along primary travel routes. The policies call for human -scale fea- tures within neighborhoods to recognize the importance of the pedestrian over the vehicle. Furthermore, urban areas should remain urban and intensification would occur where suitable, while rural character would be retained through preservation and design techniques such as clustering development. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design DRAFT 12 /16/91 M. Community Separators Objective 3.0: Provide physical and between edges of urban growth. Policy 3.1: The function of community separators should be: a. to reinforce the character of the City's neighborhoods; b. to establish boundaries between the City's urban growth area and other areas; and c. to separate high density urban land uses from areas of low density, semi -rural and conser- vation uses. Policy 3.2: Locational criteria should consider the following types of lands for inclusion in community separators: a. Individual and interconnecting natural features, critical areas, open space and water features; b. Existing and proposed individual and interconnecting parks, boulevards, utility easements, and other rights -of -way, rural residential and agricultural ar- eas. c. Areas which provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between urban uses. Policy 3.3: Community separators should be identified, mapped and desig- nated. Discussion: Community separators are intended to define neighborhoods within visual distinctions both within Renton and the City and to establish edges between Renton and adjacent areas. These ar- eas will be especially important as ur- ban areas intensify both within the City and outside of its ultimate growth area. In many cases, natural features such as water bodies and stream courses, land - form, and vegetation already serve as community separators. The built envi- ronment also presents appropriate forms such as building clusters, plazas, major institutions, industrial areas and urban parks which could be used as commu- nity separators. The provision of large and continuous areas of lower density or open space uses would provide benefits for densely populated areas. In addition they would provide environmental protection for critical lands and increase public safety where lands are hazardous. These separators could also incorporate public recreation and viewpoints. Some examples of areas which could be used as community separators include: Maple Valley, May Creek /Honey Creek Valley, Springbrook Springs /Panther Lake, portions of the East Renton Plateau, Soos Creek and the Black River /Springbrook Creek area. Some of the land could be purchased by public agencies, but most of the land could be retained in private ownership with ap- propriate zoning and development con- trols. Page 9 -7 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design DRAFT 12/16/91 IV. Gateways Objective 4.0: Define entrances to the City and the downtown area through the use of gateways. Policy 4.1: Major and secondary en- tries to the City should be identified as gateways. Policy 4.2: City gateways should have identifying design treatment in terms of landscaping, building design, signage, street furniture, paving, and street width. Policy 4.3: Development within gate- ways should receive special design treatment. Policy 4.4: A variety of development intensity at gateways should be used to reflect whether it is a principal or sec- ondary gateway. Policy 4.5: Entrances to districts, neighborhoods and downtown should be included as secondary gateways. Discussion: Community identity can be effectively communicated at City and district or neighborhood entries through the use of gateways. Gateways are one means to call attention to the entrance of the area and bid welcome. Symbolic gateways focus attention, orient, and welcome people to an area through the siting and orientation of buildings or the placement of landscaping. More literal interpretations incorporate par- ticipatory elements such as archways that must be passed through upon entry. Generally, a gateway is comprised of one or more features which can direct and focus attention, examples include monuments such as clocktowers, foun- tains, sculpture and the like. V. Views Objective 5.0: Protect and enhance views of distinctive natural and man -made visual features within the City and the surrounding area. Policy 5.1: Scenic roadways and view corridors along roadways in the City should be defined and preserved through land use and development con- trols. Page 9 -8 Policy 5.2: Visual elements of city- wide or regional significance (e.g. land - forms, distinctive or historic architec- ture, water bodies, vegetation) should be identified. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design Policy 5.3: Visually distinctive public views and vistas (those seen from public streets, highways or viewpoints) should be identified and protected. Policy 5.4: Access from public road- ways to public views of distinction should be enhanced through the devel- opment of public viewpoints where ap- propriate. Policy 5.5: Private views of distinctive visual elements should be encouraged. New commercial and residential devel- opments should preserve views of sig- nificant visual elements both within proposed developments and as seen from adjacent parcels. Policy 5.6: Visual focal points and landmarks in neighborhoods should be established as a way of increasing neighborhood identity. Policy 5.7: Views of neighborhood landmarks along public streets should be enhanced. DRAFT 12/16/91 Policy 5.8: Commercial and residential development should be encouraged to enhance views of neighborhood land- marks and visual focal points. Policy 5.9: Landscape plans should reflect the potential impact of mature vegetation on view corridors, views of significant visual elements and land- marks. Discussion: Views of the City and vi- sual features outside City boundaries leave residents and visitors with an im- pression of the character of the area. Unique natural features are generally appreciated by a great number of peo- ple and provide visual distinction for an area. Views of distinction within Ren- ton include those that orient to Mt. Rainier and Lake Washington. The policies seek to protect public views of distinction and to encourage the identi- fication of view corridors and focal points that should be preserved. VI. Vegetation Objective 6.0: Preserve vegetation for aesthetic and community character and as a means of safeguarding the environment. Policy 6.1: City -wide comprehensive landscaping standards should be devel- oped. Policy 6.2: A standard for the consis- tent use of groundcover in the public rights -of -way should be developed and maintained. Page 9 -9 Policy 6.3: A vegetation plan for the City including a tree list should be de- veloped. Policy 6.4: The installation of land- scaping located in the public right -of- way and adjacent to freeways and major highways should be promoted and en- couraged. Plant materials adaptable to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design harsh conditions should be selected for use within these areas. Policy 6.5: Existing mature vegetation and distinctive trees should be protected and retained in developments. Policy 6.6: Heritage trees or other unique individual trees should be re- tained. Policy 6.7: Maintenance plans should be required for landscaped areas in de- velopment projects. Policy 6.8: Landscape plans should be coordinated with the drainage plans for individual projects to maximize perco- lation of surface water and minimize runoff from the site. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Discussion: Natural and ornamental vegetation provides wildlife habitat, screens unsightly views, reduces expo- sure to noise and wind, softens the ap- pearance of developed areas, provides shade, stabilizes soil and assists in the percolation of runoff, and frames view corridors. Appropriate selection of vegetation is critical in the success of its survival and the effectiveness of the intended effect. These policies support the development of landscape standards and maintenance plans, and coordina- tion between landscape plans and drainage system plans. Landscaping is encouraged along travel corridors and the preservation of significant landscape features such as heritage trees is ex- pressed. VII. Urban Design Objective 7.0: Improve the visual, physical and other intensive urban development areas Streetscape Policy 7.1: Aesthetic improvements along street frontages should be pro- vided, especially for properties abutting major streets and boulevards. Incen- tives should be provided for the inclu- sion of streetscape amenities including: landscaping themes, street furniture, paving, signs and planting strips in de- veloping and redeveloping areas. Policy 7.2: Street trees should be used to reinforce visual corridors on major boulevards and streets. and experiential quality of the downtown within the City. Policy 7.3: Beautification and screen- ing of parking lots should be encour- aged through appropriate landscaping, fencing and berms. Policy 7.4: Freeways should be visu- ally and acoustically buffered from ad- jacent uses. Policy 7.5: Private development pro- jects should be encouraged to orient to- ward the street and to encourage cre- ativity in the abutting right -of -way in project design and landscaping. Page 9 -10 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design Policy 7.6: Supports for ov traffic signals should be desig diminish visual impacts. Policy 7.7: Streets, sidew parking areas should be design manner which enhances the visu ity of the street corridor. ins rhead ed to and in a qual- Policy 7.8: Sign guidelines sho ld be developed which guide size, . esign, and placement of signs in order to in- sure reasonable aesthetic and safety considerations. Policy 7.9: All billboards and signs with moving parts should be elim nated. Policy 7:10: Interpretive and direc- tional signs for major landmar and viewpoints within the City sho ld be provided. Policy 7.11: All bulky and un sually large or tall signs such as "hig way" signs should be eliminated. Policy 7.12: Sign placement should be limited to on -site locations. Policy 7.13: Signs should be re;ulated as an integral part of architectu al de- sign. Signs, in general, sho ld be compatible with the rest of the b ilding and site design. Lighting Policy 7.14: Criteria for imp oving safety and security through appr priate lighting should be established. Page 9 -11 DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 7.15: All exterior lighting should be focused and directional such that adjacent properties are not subject to spill -over glare. Policy 7.16: Design and safety guide- lines for on -site lighting should be de- veloped. Policy 7.17: Lighting should be used as one means to improve the visual identification of residences and busi- nesses. Policy 7.18: Lighting fixtures should be attractively designed to complement the architecture of a development and the site, and adjacent buildings. Policy 7.19: Lighting within commer- cial areas to enhance security should be designed and located to encourage nighttime use of areas by pedestrians. Policy 7.20: Pedestrian walkways should be highly visible and well lighted. Architectural Design Policy 7.21: The design of buildings and surrounding environment should be compatible with surrounding land use and architecture. Policy 7.22: The mass and scale of buildings should be in proper propor- tion to the site, open space, street loca- tion, and surrounding developments. Policy 7.23: Roof tops should be de- signed to be visually attractive where visible from adjacent buildings or roadways. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design Policy 7.24: Equipment associated with a development should be sited and screened to mitigate adverse impacts to adjacent less intensive uses. Policy 7.25: Design characteristics that establish neighborhood or district iden- tity should be included in large, new development sites and building designs. Policy 7.26: A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encour- aged. Innovative use of building mate- rials and finishes should be promoted. Pedestrian Facilities Policy 7.27: The design of pedestrian facilities should address safety as a first priority by means such as adequate sep- aration of cars and pedestrians, reduc- ing curb cuts, and providing adequate street crossings and lighting. Policy 7.28: Criteria should be devel- oped to locate pedestrian and bicycle connections in the City. Criteria should consider: a) linking residential areas with employment and commercial centers; b) providing access along arterials; c) providing access within residen- tial areas; d) filling gaps in the existing side- walk system; and e) providing access through open spaces and building entries to shorten walking distances. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Public Transit Policy 7.29: Public transit facilities should be improved for aesthetic and functional purposes. Policy 7.30: The City should take an active role in working with the regional transit agency in planning and locating public transit facilities. Policy 7.31: New transit facilities in downtown Renton, particularly a transit station or transfer station should be part of an activity node within the down- town. Page 9 -12 Policy 7.32: The design of bus shelters should be compatible with surrounding structures and street furniture, and when feasible, a landscaped area should be provided. Policy 7.33: Transit shelters should be equipped with seating, signs, lighting and weather protection. Major transit centers should also include phone sta- tions, information stands, newspaper racks, and restroom facilities. Policy 7.34: The needs of special population, such as senior citizens, handicapped persons, young adults, and children, should be considered when designing public transit facilities. Policy 7.35: Adequate lighting and security measures should be included within Park and Ride lots. Landscaping in the Park and Ride lots should allow for good visibility safety and security. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design Discussion: Community and urban form is further defined by design ele- ments within the area. Streetscape character can be established by street furnishings, lighting, signs, landscap- ing, pavement, and building detailing. The needs of both pedestrians and mo- torists travelling within and through ur- ban areas are addressed by the policies. Safety and security through visibility DRAFT 12 /16/91 and appropriate lighting are empha- sized. These policies also establish criteria for the character of buildings and architectural treatment in the urban area. Movement through the urban area by a variety of travel modes: auto, bus, bicycle and foot travel are also addressed. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies 1. Strengthen the image of the City: a. develop distinctive and well - defined gateways to the City; b. preserve rural areas and open space that serve as community separators; c. encourage growth of the downtown as a vital and well - defined regional urban center; d. develop distinctive public architecture; e. create a network of boulevards that delineate and distinguish the various districts and neighborhoods within the City; and f. capitalize further on existing amenities including open space, existing rivers and waterways and views. 2. Improve the urban environment downtown: a. upgrade the safety and convenience of pedestrian walkways; and provide more pedestrian amenities such as covered walkways, public art, and public street furniture (benches, light fixtures, or water fountains); Page 9 -13 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design Policies DRAFT 12 /16/91 b. create places of varying scale and character for people to meet or rest such as public parks, plazas and courtyards; and create spaces that will accommodate special events such as outdoor concerts; c. encourage new buildings to make a positive contribution to the City's skyline and to the streetscape by concentrating on the design of buildings at street level and of building roof tops; d. build on the historic character of several downtown buildings; and e. develop a network of boulevards and landscaped public streets that delineate and define downtown and distinguish districts within downtown. 3. Make the urban environment more pedestrian- oriented: a. limit the amount of on -site parking and reduce the negative visual impact of parking areas on the public streetscape; b. upgrade the safety and convenience of pedestrian facilities provided in com- mercial, office, industrial and housing developments; and c. eliminate current barriers to pedestrian access; and, provide better pedestrian connections between residential, commercial, office and industrial areas. 4. Build neighborhoods: a. retain open space that serves as neighborhood separators; b. develop a network of boulevards and landscaped residential streets that delineate and define neighborhoods; c. allow for the development of small - scale, pedestrian- oriented commercial cen- ters that create opportunities for neighbors to meet; and d. provide parks as focal points for neighborhoods (the pocket park idea). Implementation 1. Incorporate urban design standards in the City Code to reflect the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 9 -14 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Community Design Policies DRAFT 12 /16/91 2. Develop an urban design plan as part of a land use and economic redevelopment plan for the downtown area. 3. Develop community design plans for neighborhoods and districts as part of subarea plans. 4. Create incentives for private development to incorporate community design features such as public gathering places, art, street furniture and landscaping. 5. Develop design and maintenance standards for landscaping within the City. Page 9 -15 CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The purpose of the transportation policies is to guide the development and improvement of the City's circulation system. These policies address problems such as congestion and travel time delays, traffic impacts on residential areas, parking, and the lack of transit, pedestrian, and bicyclists' services. The policies will be used to guide trans- portation planning within the City. Background From the 1870s to the 1940s, Renton developed around extractive industries such as coal mining, timber, and brick maidng which originally used a combination of water and land transportation to move products to regional, national and international mar- kets. The water route which connects Renton to Seattle gave Renton an advantage over neighboring communities in establishing a strong employment base. Three major freight and rail lines connected Renton to Seattle between 1900 and 1930. The establishment of Pacific Car and Foundry began a shift away from extractive in- dustries toward industrial development and manufacturing. In the 1940s, establishment of the Boeing Company plant at the end of Lake Washington accelerated this trend, and during this period Renton became a major employment center. The industrial employment center developed at the same locations formerly occupied by extractive industries -- perhaps in part because the transportation network to serve these sites was already well established. This became important because the industrial area remained in the heart of the City and was served by a transportation network which converged on the City center. With the shift away from rail toward automobile and truck transportation in the 1940s and 1950s, a new type of regional transportation hub was created in Renton. Two major freeways (Interstate 405 and SR 167) and three State highways (SR 900, 515 and 169) augmented and replaced the rail system. This road system was developed to provide a regional network allowing access around Lake Washington and serve the Renton industrial area. During this period, the transportation demand shifted from ex- porting raw materials to importing a major work force. Page 10-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation DRAFT 12/16/91 Existing Conditions Today, Renton is a bustling city and its streets accommodate high volumes of local and regional traffic. Renton is home to 43,000 residents as well as 44,000 jobs. In addition, another 60,000 people live in areas surrounding the City. These people create much of the lo- cal traffic which courses through the City's arterial system each day. In addition to being affected by local traffic, Renton is affected by regional traffic. Renton occupies a unique position within the region. It lies at the junction of two ma- jor freeways and three state highways which link Seattle, South King County and the Eastside. Because of Renton's central location, over 190,000 cars pass through the City each day. Much of this traffic has neither an origin nor destination in the City. This regional "pass through" traffic often clogs up the local transportation system. When the regional transportation system is congested, local traffic trying to enter the freeways frequently gets backed up onto the local arterials, creating local congestion. In addition, regional commuters looking for a path of least resistance through the area often resort to using the City's already crowded arterial streets. As a result, when the regional system is congested, local circulation also suffers. Traffic congestion occurs at various locations within the City, however, certain areas experience severe congestion. These highly congested areas are located primarily near freeway interchanges and employment activity centers. Because of their location near regional freeways and high levels of employment, the Central and Valley portions of the City experience most of the traffic congestion. Renton's street system is most crowded in the early morning hours and mid- to late -af- ternoon when commuters are traveling between their jobs and home. Job related com- muting places a heavy strain on the transportation system in Renton because the City is an employment center. Over 44,000 people work in the City each day. More than 75 % work for the 10 largest employers within the City such as Boeing, PACCAR, Valley Medical and the City of Renton. Traffic can become extremely congested around the employment centers, especially the larger ones, when workdays begin or end. Most commuters within Renton still use single occupant vehicles for their trip to work. In the Comprehensive Plan Survey, respondents indicated that only about 10% of Ren- ton residents use transit or carpooling to commute to work. Even fewer people use these alternative modes of transportation for other trips such as shopping. METRO currently provides both local and regional bus service in Renton. Regional bus service is also available at two park and ride facilities within the City. Page 10 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation Trends DRAFT 12 /16/91 There is one solid traffic trend within the region: traffic is increasing. There are a variety of reasons for this increase. Much of the increase is due to the growth in population, jobs and housing. There are now more people commuting within the region. In addition, the location of employment and housing impacts the length and variety of trips made. New housing development is occurring on vacant land in outlying parts of the metropolitan area rather than on land closer to traditional urban centers. Employment centers are also relocating to suburban areas. The general increase in standard of living in the region also increases traffic because, as the standard of living increases, car ownership increases and so does trip making. In addition, the average length of trips is also increasing. The cumulative effect of all of these factors is more cars on the road and increasing traffic congestion. Current traffic improvement projects and programs undertaken by the City's Trans- portation Division include realignment of the S -Curves and the addition of High Occu- pancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to Interstate 405, completion of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., the widening of Grady Way, development and implementation of the North Renton Transportation Plan, and establishment of a system of truck routes. The City is presently working on expansion of its system of pedestrian and bicycle trails. I Issues i The policies address the following major issues. * Traffic Congestion and Use of High Occupancy Vehicles: In the Puget Sound region in the past, construction of more roads has provided temporary relief from traf- fic congestion. Over the last twenty years, environmental concerns created strong op- position to this approach. Due to limited funding and continuing concern for the envi- ronment, few new roads will be built. The current and future challenge is to better manage the existing system and reduce traffic demand as much as possible by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. * Displaced Regional Traffic on Local Streets: For the last twenty years, a major goal of the transportation system in Renton was to move traffic through town and pro- vide access to employment centers. The wisdom of continuing to accommodate high volumes of "pass through" traffic is now being questioned by business leaders and resi- dents of the downtown and centrally located neighborhoods. Protecting neighborhoods from the impacts of regional and city -wide traffic is desirable. However, this protec- tion may be accomplished at the risk of stifling employment growth and reducing city- wide accessibility below previously acceptable standards. Page 10.3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation DRAFT 12 /16/91 * Improvements to the Street System: The designation and improvement of an arte- rial street system which can adequately serve land uses in the City continues to be an important issue. The City is in the process of working on a city -wide arterial plan. Consequently, the designation of key pieces of the arterial system is yet to be deter- mined. In addition, establishing city -wide service level standards is now mandated under growth management requirements for the street system. Creation of a road system which can accommodate pedestrians is also important. The design and appearance of transportation facilities and their potential impact on residen- tial and commercial areas should be considered. Improvements to the road system need to be made in a way which will encourage pedestrian activity and improve the quality of neighborhoods. Funding of transportation facilities and the timing of improvements relative to development is also important. * Transit: The lack of convenient bus service from residential areas to the downtown and employment centers is an important issue. Buses provide limited routes between residential neighborhoods and the downtown as well as link downtown to the major regional centers such as Bellevue and Seattle. Major employment centers are not now adequately served. In addition, the routing, frequency and length of trips often make bus transportation inconvenient. The regional transit network is also an issue. As a major employment center, Renton is a potential candidate for either a regional transit center and /or a regional commuter rail system linking it with Bellevue, Seattle and Tacoma. * Parking: Adequate to excessive parking is available in most areas of the City. In the downtown, however, parking is more limited. There is a perception on the part of some citizens that parking is in short supply in the downtown area. The implementa- tion of a parking study for the City which will evaluate existing parking and create a parking strategy is needed. Major issues include whether required parking ratios should be reduced, where parking lots should be located, and whether public and /or private parking garages should be encouraged. * Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails: Many areas of the City, are not adequately served by either bicycle trails or pedestrian walkways. Some areas, typically the older neigh- borhoods, have a sidewalk network while other areas have few or no sidewalks. Ac- cording to the Comprehensive Plan Survey results, the sidewalk and trails which do exist are well used by local residents. Scenarios for the Future * Traffic Congestion and Use of High Occupancy Vehicles: Four general scenarios can be projected for future traffic conditions in Renton. New roads could be built and existing roadways improved; Page 10-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation DRAFT 12 /16/91 Congestion could worsen on the existing system; Travel demand could be reduced; A new transit system (bus or rail) could absorb a large number of trips but con- gestion will continue on existing roadways. In reality, all of these scenarios may occur to some degree. However, it is clear that funding and environmental considerations will limit the City's ability to expand the road system or provide transit. To prevent overwhelming congestion from occurring, an emphasis should be placed on increasing the efficiency of the existing system. * Displaced Regional Traffic on Local Streets: Without a coherent set of policies designed to prevent regional traffic from overflowing onto the City arterials and local streets, the problem of pass through traffic will continue to worsen. The most feasible way to address this problem is through a combination of neighborhood protection poli- cies, and strong incentives supporting HOV alternatives on the arterial system. The City can also work with other jurisdictions on regional transportation issues. * Improvements to the Street System: Changes in the street system will more prob- ably occur as small improvements to existing streets rather than creation of new road- ways or major expansions of arterial networks. Increasingly, these changes will be a product of public /private partnerships paid by impact fees. In addition, HOV lanes will become more common. * Transit: Transit may provide the greatest potential change in the Renton transporta- tion system. If a regional high capacity transit system becomes reality, Renton needs to accommodate stops in both the downtown and at the major employment centers. * Parking: As the City seeks ways to support transit and HOV use, the ratio of building area to parking spaces provided in buildings will come under scrutiny. The amount of parking provided in developments may shift from being a "minimum re- quired" to a "maximum allowed ". Similarly, as land becomes more intensively de- veloped large surface parking lots will become less desirable. Alternatives such as shared parking facilities and structured parking will become realistic as Renton be- comes more urbanized. * Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails: In the future, bicycling and walking to work may also become more realistic alternatives for more people. Expansion of the existing bike and trail systems will make these modes of transportation more convenient and conges- tion on the road system will make them more attractive. Page 10-5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation POLICIES DRAFT 12 /16/91 TRANSPORTATION GOAL: Plan a balanced multi-modal transportation system which will support land use patterns, and adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth within the City. I. Transportation and Land Use Planning Objective 1.0: Coordinate land use and transportation planning. Policy 1.1: Land use plans and regulations should be used to guide development of a comprehensive transportation plan for the City. Policy 1.2: Transportation improvements should support land use plans. Policy 1.3: Transportation plans should be phased concurrently with growth. Policy 1.4: Adequate transportation facili- ties and services should be in place at the time of occupancy. Policy 1.5: Land use and transportation plans should be consistent so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible with each other. Policy 1.6: Land use patterns which sup- port transit should be promoted. Discussion: The overall intent in this plan is to create a desirable land use pattern and serve the land uses with the transportation system. The transportation policies in this Land Use Element serve as a set of frame- work policies to accomplish this objective. A goal of these policies is to provide for a multi -modal transportation .system. A multi -modal .system is defined as one which involves various types of transportation such as automobiles, buses, rail transit, bi- cycles. In the Transportation Element of the Plan, a more detailed and technical transporta- tion plan is presented as implementation of these framework policies. The Transporta- tion Element will encompass several sub - plans including an arterial plan, trans- portation demand management plan, bicy- cle and pedestrian plan, transit plan and financial plan. II. Street System Objective 2.0: Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable vehicular circulation throughout the City. Page 10-6 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation Policy 2.1: Each street in the City should be assigned a functional classification based on factors including: a. traffic volumes; b. type of service provided; c. land use; and d. preservation of existing neighbor- hoods. Policy 2.2: Street standards should be de- veloped for each functional classification in the Transportation Element of the Compre- hensive Plan. These street standards should be coordinated with policies in the com- munity design (Chapter 9) and open space and parks (Chapter 7) chapters. Policy 2.3: A minimum service level should be developed for the street system which a. achieves consistency with service standards of adjacent jurisdictions; b. minimizes conflict with other city policies (e.g. aquifer protection); c. maximizes neighborhood preserva- tion; d. accounts for topographical features which limit intersection improve- ments; and e. promotes pedestrian safety and mobility. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Discussion: The City's arterial system will be reviewed in detail in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and a new arterial plan will be prepared. As part of this process, functional classifications will be assigned to city streets. Functional classifications should include definitions for streets, such as principal, minor, and collector arterials, and local streets. These street standards would be based on factors such as roadway width, sidewalk width, design speed, and landscape features. The arterial plan will be implemented as port of multi -year financing plan. Appro- priate portions of the multi year financing plan will serve as the basis for the six year street, road, or transit program for the City. Service level criteria for the transportation system need to be developed to judge per- formance of the system. These service lev- els should be developed in conjunction with the service levels for other city systems. III. Traffic Flow Objective 3.0: Eliminate disruptions which reduce the safety and reasonable functioning of the local transportation system. Policy 3.1: Maximize traffic flow and ac- cessibility on arterial roads while protecting local /neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Page 10-7 Policy 3.2: Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased traffic and reducing accessibility for the city -wide road network. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation Policy 3.3: Heavy through truck traffic should be limited to designated truck routes in residential areas and in the downtown in order to reduce its disruptive impacts. Policy 3.4: The effects of regional traffic congestion and overflow onto the local transportation system should be minimized. Policy 3.5: Strategies to reduce traffic flows should be developed for local areas experiencing extreme congestion. Policy 3.6: The disruptive impacts of traf- fic related to major institutions, activity centers and employers should be reduced. Discussion: Traffic generated by employ- ment centers, regional pass- through traffic using local streets and truck traffic all con- tribute to congestion and reduced accessi- bility within the City. In resolving traffic flow problems, a number of choices will need to be made. In some cases, increas- ing traffic flows only increases congestion on local streets or impacts pedestrians, yet if traffic flows are reduced accessibility can be compromised. Alternately, if the local street system is efficient and not congested, regional traffic will begin to use it. The intent of these policies is to provide guid- ance for development of a balanced strat- egy to handle the overflow of regional traf- fic on local arterials and to reduce traffic impacts on local neighborhoods. The objective is to reduce the amount of traffic that has neither an origin nor desti- nation in the City but at the same time provide reasonable levels of traffic flow and Page 10-8 DRAFT 12/16/91 accessibility on the local street system. Promoting methods which inconvenience drivers, such as reducing speed limits, changing light timing, installing traffic cir- cles, or creating circuitous routes may be one way of discouraging regional traffic on local streets. Policy 3.6 states that strategies to reduce traffic flow should be considered for ex- tremely congested locations. Areas of the City which require this type of intervention should be identified and addressed through the sub -area planning process, neighbor- hood plans or traffic mitigation programs which are implemented through develop- ment review. The North Renton Livable Streets Program is an example of such a neighborhood program. Policy 3.3 addresses the disruptive impacts of truck traffic on the downtown and in residential areas. In this context, the "disruptive impacts" refers to nuisances, particularly noise and parking, associated with heavy trucks. In addition, the intent of the policies is to minimize the physical impact of heavy trucks on city streets. Policy 3.6 addresses the disruptive impacts of traffic at employment centers. In this context, disruptive impacts are primarily traffic. They could be minimized through techniques, such as transportation manage- ment programs implemented through coop- erative agreements at the word place, flex- ible work hours and sub -area planning. Future Public Transportation Network Figure 10 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation DRAFT 12 /16/91 IV. Transit and Other High Occupancy Vehicles Objective 4.0: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single occupancy vehi- cles. Policy 4.1: The City should work with other jurisdictions in the greater metropoli- tan area toward providing frequent, coordi- nated and comprehensive bus service and facilities in all residential and employment areas. Policy 4.2: The establishment of a multi- modal transit center in downtown Renton should be promoted as part of a regional high capacity transit system. Policy 4.3: Parking for the transit system should primarily serve the collector portion of the system located outside of the down- town. Parking areas serving the downtown transit center should be accommodated in parking structures. Policy 4.4: Park and Ride facilities should be located out of the downtown and feed into the downtown transit center. Policy 4.5: The completion of a compre- hensive system of HOV improvements and programs on state highways and regional arterials which give high - occupancy vehi- cles a travel time advantage over single -oc- cupancy vehicles should be supported. Policy 4.6: Measures to increase the use of high occupancy vehicles should be pro- moted among employers located within the City. Policy 4.7: Development of a regional network using new technology to move people and goods should be supported. Discussion: In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. Page 10 -9 The challenge will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. These policies address this challenge by focusing on increasing the people carrying capacity of the system rather than the ve- hicular capacity. Policies 4.1 and 4.2 support increased bus service and the establishment of a regional high capacity transit .system. Policy 4.5 supports HOV improvements and incen- tives. The Residential and Commercial policies of this plan also support transit by encouraging residential densities at a minimum of 8 dwelling units per acre and a mix of residential and commercial uses in commercial centers which can support pub- lic transportation. (See Figure 10-1) Specific treatment of the routes and stops for a transit system in downtown Renton would be addressed in the Downtown Plan. However, it is expected that such stops would become commercial activity nodes which would complement the commercial and residential activities envisioned in the Commercial and Residential policies of the plan. Parking for the future transit system is en- couraged outside of the downtown to dis- courage increased traffic congestion. Cri- teria should be developed to guide estab- lishment of Park and Ride lots serving resi- dential areas (see Parking Section 6). Parking which is established to serve the downtown stops of a transit system is to be Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation structured in order to conserve land re- sources. DRAFT 12 /16/91 V. Non - Motorized Transportation Objective 5.0: Improve the non - motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel. Policy 5.1: Pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be accommodated within all resi- dential and employment areas of the City. Policy 5.2: Pedestrian and bicycle move- ment across principal arterial intersections should be enhanced. Policy 5.3: Obstructions and conflicts with pedestrian movement should be minimized on sidewalks, paths and other pedestrian areas. Policy 5.4: Convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided to and at all transit stops. Policy 5.5: Bicycle storage facilities and parking should be encouraged within de- velopment projects, in commercial areas and in parks. Discussion: Renton's existing transporta- tion system is oriented towards accommo- dating cars, trucks, and buses rather than pedestrians or bicycles. The intent of these policies is to provide guidelines for re -eval- uating the existing system and providing a better environment for walking and bicy- cling. Overall, pedestrian facilities throughout the City are intended to be up- graded. More facilities are also needed for bicycle storage and parking in shopping areas, employment centers and in public places. For example, a better pedestrian network can be encouraged by creating an intercon- nected streets system developed to street standards which include adequate walkways and street crossings. Traffic sanctuary is- lands and mid -block crossings across busy arterials are also useful methods of improv- ing the pedestrian environment. Objective 6.0: Maintain existing rail service to commercial and industrial sites. Policy 6.1: Design transportation facilities in a manner which complements railroads. Policy 6.2: Locate spur tracks to provide a minimum number of street crossings and serve a maximum number of sites. Page 10-10 Policy 6.3: Minimize adverse impacts of railroad operations on adjoining adjacent resident property. Policy 6.4: Design railroad crossings to minimize maintenance and protect the street surface. Comprehensive Plan Land Uae Element Transportation Policy 6.5: Provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals on at grade crossings. Discussion: Rail freight service is cur- rently available to several industrial and commercial areas of the City. The intent of these policies is to recognize the importance of maintaining rail transportation because DRAFT 12/16/91 it supports industrial and commercial land uses, and provides one component of a multi -modal transportation system. The policies also provide guidelines to insure that existing rail lines do not impact adja- cent land uses, create maintenance prob- lems for City streets or pose safety hazards. VI. Parking Objective 7.0: Promote a reasonable balance Policy 7.1: Appropriate parking ratios should be developed which take into ac- count existing parking supply, land use in- tensity and transit and ride sharing goals. Policy 7.2: Alternatives to on- street or on- site parking should be explored. Policy 7.3: Criteria should be developed to locate Park and Ride lots serving residential areas. Policy 7.4: The construction of parking structures should be encouraged. Discussion: The location and supply of parking is an integral part of the local transportation system. Inadequate parking can increase congestion on streets as peo- ple circle and hunt for available spaces. Too much parking is an inefficient use of land and can deter transit use. A proper balance needs to be achieved between parking supply and demand. Satellite parking and shuttle services and collective Page 10- etween parking supply and parking demand. structured parking are potential methods for increasing the parking supply. Criteria for locating park and ride lots serving residential areas should address factors such as the intensity of development in adjacent areas, the level of traffic congestion in the areas, proximity to arte- rial streets, and opportunities to buffer lots from living areas. Ideas such as lowering parking ratios and establishing a maximum ratio of parking to building size could be explored. Other standards for construction of parking structures should include min- imization of land area and the amount of impervious surfaces. However, parking ratios should only be reduced as transit services are increased and an adequate level of public transit can be demonstrated. It is the intent of these policies to use in- centives as much as possible to create choices for developers as they evaluate how to provide parking on a site. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation DRAFT 12 /16/91 VII. Transportation Facility Design Objective 7.0: Design transportation facilities to and built environment. Policy 7.1: Transportation facilities should be landscaped to complement neighborhood character and amenities. Policy 7.2: Prominent features of the natu- ral environment should be maintained and incorporated into the landscape of trans- portation facilities. Policy 7.3: Neighborhoods should be pro- tected from transportation facility im- provements that are not in character with the residential areas. Policy 7.4: Adverse transportation im- provement impacts should be mitigated. Policy 7.5: Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be ar- ranged as an interconnecting network and should connect to other streets. Policy 7.6: The development of new cul- de -sac streets should be limited. Policy 7.7: Streets in residential neighbor- hoods should be built as narrowly as pos- sible to reduce traffic speeds, facilitate pedestrian crossing and reduce land usage. preserve and be consistent with the natural Policy 7.8: The urban design elements of the street system should be developed in accordance with policies in the Urban De- sign chapter of this plan. Discussion: The intent of these policies is to reduce the environmental and visual im- pacts of transportation facilities as much as possible during project design. This means that new facilities should be designed to support neighborhood preservation where possible. Projects should also be designed to enhance commercial and industrial ar- eas. One method of accomplishing these objectives is to create a road system which is as pedestrian oriented as possible. Roads should be as narrow as safety per- mits. Roads should be interconnected to facilitate easy movement from one part of the neighborhood to another. Sidewalks and trails should be designed to encourage pedestrian use. Landscaping should be en- couraged to enhance the road system and make streets as human scale as possible. VIII. Funding Objective 8.0: Pursue funding for transportation an efficient and equitable manner. Policy 8.1: Growth related traffic im- provements should be funded primarily by impact fees charged to new development. Page 10-12 improvements from all potential sources in Policy 8.2: Coordinate equitable pub- lic /private partnerships, such as Trans- portation Benefit Zones (TBZ) and Trans- Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation portation Benefits Districts (TBD) to help pay for transportation improvements. Policy 8.3: Pursue federal, state and local sources of funding (e.g. loans, matching funds) for transportation improvements. Policy 8.4: Establish a mechanism to pro- vide multi jurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation improvements. Policy 8.5: Create a funding mechanism, such as a Transportation Benefit District which can be applied across boundaries to address the impact of growth outside the city limits on the City's transportation sys- tem. Discussion: The intent of these policies is to provide a framework to guide develop- ment of a funding program for transporta- tion improvements. Most transportation improvement measures require funding to become reality. Lack of DRAFT 12/16/91 funding can be an obstacle to improving the transportation system within the City. There are several sources which can be used to fund transportation improvement projects, including various governmental agencies, as well as the private sector. It is the intent of the policies to require new development to pay for its fair share of needed transportation improvements. Public /private partnerships, such as Trans- portation Benefit Zones and Transportation Benefit Districts are seen as techniques with good potential for implementing future im- provements. With new growth anticipated in the Soos Creek and Newcastle Planning Areas outside the City of Renton, it will be particularly important to establish inter - jurisdictional funding mechanisms for transportation improvement. IX. Intergovernmental Cooperation Objective 9.0: Coordinate transportation operations, planning and improvements with other transportation authorities and municipalities. Policy 9.1: A subregional transportation system should be designed and imple- mented in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. Policy 9.2: Local and regional transit ser- vice and facilities should be planned and improved in cooperation with the regional transit authority. Discussion: Transportation problems are not a local phenomenon. A multitude of agencies are involved in transportation planning and improvement. To become Page 10-13 better integrated into the regional trans- portation system, Renton needs to strengthen its role in the region, especially in South King County and the Puget Sound area, and participate in regional forums as transportation decisions are made. This is particularly important since Renton contin- ues to be a major regional employment center and a disproportionate number of the vehicles on city arterials are pass through traffic. Decisions made about fu- ture transportation systems for the Puget Sound area will directly impact the future .ail ..t Fj_if; •. i i. ��. tH: e3 :.:..,�.rr..,w..,.,....,v_._..._ • _ .• Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation of Renton's commercial and industrial base. nth the new requirements of the Growth Management Act mandating concurrency between land use and transportation plan- ning, the kind of interjurisdictional coop- eration envisioned in the policies is becom- ing more of a reality. However, in this environment it will become increasingly DRAFT 12 /16/91 important for Renton to support negotiation tools such as interlocal agreements, and participate in interjurisdictional decision making. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies The transportation policies suggest the following types of actions. 1. Reduce traffic congestion and increase use of High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV): a. provide a multi -modal transportation system; b. increase the carrying capacity of the system by promoting HOV networks; c. support expanded transit service; and d. promote establishment of a high capacity transit system serving downtown Renton. 2. Provide land use patterns which support transit: a. create enough density in the downtown and residential areas to better support transit; b. create a mix of land uses in the downtown and commercial areas to reduce peak hour trip generation; c. protect downtown and residential areas from large amounts of through truck traffic; and d. continue to use existing freight rail facilities as an alternative to truck trans- portation. 3. Reduce the problem of pass through traffic on City streets: Page 10-14 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation DRAFT 12 /16/91 a. keep regional traffic on the regional system; b. balance the dual goals of providing accessibility within the local street system with protecting neighborhoods; and c. where overflow traffic from the regional system significantly impacts neighbor- hoods, protect the residential area. 4. Improve streets in the following manner: a. require street improvements to be provided concurrently with development; b. evaluate the functional classifications assigned to streets based on issues such as land and neighborhood preservation as well as traffic volumes and type of ser- vice to be provided; c. complete an arterial plan for the City; d. define minimum service levels for the street system; and e. use public /private partnerships and interjurisdictional agreements to fund trans- portation improvements. 5. Support transit service by working with Metro: a. improve bus service to the downtown and employment centers; b. establish a multi -modal transfer station in the downtown; c. improve bus service in the neighborhoods to commercial and employment cen- ters; and d. establish a regional high capacity transit system. 6. Evaluate private and public parking needs and provide needed public facilities: a. provide for a network of park and ride lots serving residential areas which feed into the regional transit system located downtown; b. reduce required parking ratios as transit service becomes available; and c. require structured parking in the downtown. 7. Improve the City's bicycle and pedestrian system: a. expand the bicycle and pedestrian trail system; b. add bicycle storage and parking facilities; and Page 10 -15 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Transportation DRAFT 12 /16/91 c. create an interconnected street network using street standards which include amenities for pedestrians. IMPLEMENTATION Complete the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan including: Arterial Plan; Transit Plan; Transportation Demand Management Plan; Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; Financial Plan; Complete the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan; Revise City Subdivision and Zoning ordinances as needed to comply with the Comprehensive Plan; and Negotiate interlocal agreements with King County and other jurisdictions for funding of transportation improvements. Page 10-16 CHAPTER 11 AIRPORT DISCUSSION DRAFT 12/16/91 The purpose of the airport policies is to guide development and improvement of the City's air transportation facilities. Background The City of Renton's Municipal Airport is an important community and regional facil- ity. The airport's function is to divert general aviation aircraft traffic from the Sea -Tac International Airport. The term "General Aviation" excludes only commercial airline and military operations. The municipal airport provides for regional and local general aviation services for commercial (air charter, air taxi and courier), corporate and recreational aviation. The Boeing Company leases 52% of the usable airport land area and uses it for airplane production related purposes. The Renton Airport is the third busiest airport within the state in terms of the number of take -offs. Recreational, flight instruction, and corporate purposes comprise more than 90% of these take -offs, with less than 10% being by charter airplanes and for manufacturing purposes by the Boeing Company. The Renton Municipal Airport also facilitates use of the Will Rogers -Wiley Post Sea- plane Base located in Lake Washington by maintaining dockage and access ramps on airport property. The existence of an access ramp and the availability of dockage es- sentially controls the amount of seaplane activity at the seaplane base. Existing Conditions The airport facility is wedged into a location tightly bounded by Lake Washington, the Cedar River, Airport Way, Rainier Avenue and West Hill. Beyond these barriers, urban uses are located to the east, south and west. These urban uses include manufac- turing, commercial and residential. To the south and north of the airport are clear zones. These areas are at ground level beginning at the end of the runway and extending under the approach surface of the airport. The south clear zone extends southward from Airport Way to mid -block be- tween North 2nd and North 3rd Avenues, and between Shattuck Street on the east and Lake Street on the west: Within the clear zone height restrictions are imposed upon development. The north clear zone extends northward over Lake Washington and height restrictions are effected through a lease of lake area from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Airport DRAFT 12 /16/91 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operates a control tower service. The air- port land area is fully developed. Presently located on airport lands are aircraft, air- craft service and storage facilities, offices and vehicle parking areas. Trends The airport is already a heavily used facility and demand on the airport continues to steadily grow. This growth is primarily due to the closure of other general aviation airports in the region such as those which were at Bellevue and Kent. It is also par- tially due to the increases in production at the Boeing plant. In addition there is increased demand for seaplane activity at the seaplane base due to closure of seaplane facilities elsewhere in the region. Issues * Increased Use of the Airport: Air traffic demand is expected to increase. How- ever, increased air traffic could adversely impact surround land use. * Airport Expansion: The physical expansion of the airport is constrained by the sur- rounding built and natural environment. However, the primary expansion issue is not the expansion of the runway and taxiways, but the expansion of airport uses to the south. The location of vehicle parking areas and office space for aviation related busi- nesses which need proximity to the airport but do not require direct access to the run- way and taxiway is a major issue. * Redevelopment of Downtown: The growth of urban areas around the airport is constrained by FAA height limits within the clear zone. The limitations on building height within the downtown area will influence the way downtown Renton can rede- velop. * Effective Use of Existing Airport Lands: Land use within the airport does not now reflect the most efficient use of taxi -way and runway access space. The efficiency of airport lands could be maximized by rearranging land uses within the airport and per- mitting relocation of activities which do not require direct access to the runway and taxiway to the south of Airport Way. Some of the service facilities, parking, offices and administrative areas presently located with direct access to the runway could be relocated without compromising their functions. * Noise: Air traffic causes impacts which affect most of the surrounding development. The primary impact is engine noise from airplanes both in the air and on the ground. This noise has caused significant community opposition to future growth in air traffic. However, since the airport is a "public airport" operated as a public necessity, the regulation of air traffic by the City is difficult. * Expansion of Seaplane Activity: A modest expansion of seaplane ramp facilities at the Renton Airport could substantially increase seaplane activity at the south end of Page 11 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Airport DRAFT 12/16/91 Lake Washington. The City will need to determine if it favors expansion of the sea- plane operations. Scenarios for the Future Although it is probably not possible to accommodate all of the demand for growth placed upon the airport, the community must decide if it will accommodate some addi- tional growth. The other options which are available to the community are to maintain the status quo or even further limit airport activities from their current levels. POLICIES AIRPORT GOAL: Create efficiently functioning air transportation facilities which are responsibly integrated with the City's transportation system and land use pattern. I. Air Transportation Facilities Objective 1.0: Promote and develop local air transportation facilities in a responsible and efficient manner. Policy 1.1: Support the land base and seaplane base activities. Policy 1.2: Support increased air transportation with appropriate mitiga- tion measures of potential adverse im- pacts. Policy 1.3: Use existing airport land primarily for direct aviation related uses. Policy 1.4: Develop appropriate land use plans and regulations for structures and vegetation within the airport sphere of influence. Policy 1.5: Minimize conflicts between development regulations and air traffic regulations. Discussion: The intent of these policies is to support increased aviation activi- ties when appropriate mitigation of ad- verse impacts is possible. Issues such as the following need to be more fully addressed in the downtown plan: physical expansion of the airport land use in the Airport Way vicinity, devel- opment of regulations especially height restrictions and noise. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Airport DRAFT 12 /16/91 STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies 1. Support increased aviation activity with appropriate mitigation. 2. Maximize efficiency of land uses within the airport. 3. Support existing seaplane operations. Implementation These policies will be implemented through the following documents. 1, Updated Master Plan for the Renton Airport. 2. Airport Land Use Plan. 3. The Downtown Sub -Area Plan. 4. Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments. 5. Capital Facilities Plan. 6. Approvals of any development allowed within the airport or the airport sphere of influence. Page 11-4 • CHAPTER 12 PUBLIC FACILITIES DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The purpose of these policies is to address the land use impacts and implications of a variety of facilities that provide services to residents of Renton and the surrounding area. For purposes of this discussion, public facilities also includes quasi- public uses such as cultural and religious facilities and private educational and large -scale medical centers. From this description it is apparent that facilities discussed in this section vary widely in their size, function, service area, and impacts. For that reason it is necessary to provide a mix of policies which are aimed at addressing the generic impacts of all of the facilities and the specific impacts of each. Background Public facilities are an important part of the urban landscape because they shape the form of the City, provide valuable services to the public, and contribute to local iden- tity. For example, Renton Technical College (formerly Renton Vocational Technical Institute) is identified with this area even though it serves a larger population. The same is true of Valley Medical Center. Schools also serve multiple functions because they foster neighborhood and community identity, provide access to athletic and cul- tural facilities, and are an important factor in attracting population and jobs. Existing Conditions Renton is home to several local and regional facilities which serve the residents of Renton and the surrounding area. In addition to the municipal facilities, King County has a maintenance shop, health center and a district court in the Highlands, near Renton Technical College. City University, a private institution, is located along I -405 be- tween downtown and the Green River Valley. Valley Medical Center is a large health care complex just east of S.R. 167 on Carr Road in south Renton. Renton School District 403 covers an area of 32.5 square miles, about twice the land area of the City. The district includes 13 elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools, one alternative high school, and two schools for special students. Beginning with the 1991 school year, Renton Vocational Technical Institute became part of the state's post secondary system and changed its name to Renton Technical College. Of the facilities mentioned, nine elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, one special school, and the alternative high school are located outside of the City in the sphere of influence. Page 12 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities DRAFT 12 /16/91 Three other districts operate within the City's sphere of influence. Kent School District 415 has one high school, one middle school, and four elementary schools in the area north of S.E. 208th Street. A portion of Tahoma School District 409's service area falls within Renton's sphere of influence but the district has no facilities within that area. Issaquah School District 411 has three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within Renton's sphere of influence. Several private schools are also located in and near Renton. St. Anthony's school, in downtown, houses kindergarten through eighth grade and is the largest private facility in the area. A few of the other private schools serving the Renton area include the Cedar River Montessori on Jones Road, Maple Valley Christian on 174th S.E., and Renton Christian just west of the Renton Airport. There are also a large number of small private preschools scattered throughout the area operating in private homes and special facilities. Police and fire services in Renton are provided by the City within its corporate limits and by the county and five fire districts in the outlying areas. All of Renton's police facilities are currently centralized in the municipal building and adjacent municipal courts building in the downtown. Fire service is provided by three stations located in the downtown, the Highlands, and the Benson Hill area. Cultural facilities in Renton consist primarily of a main library straddling the Cedar River in downtown, a branch library in the Highlands, Renton Historical Museum next to the municipal complex, and two stage theaters, one downtown and the other east of I -405 along the Cedar River. In the outlying area, King County has branch libraries in Fairwood and Skyway. Religious centers is a broadly defined category which includes churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, shrines, holy sites, and ancillary uses and facilities. There are more than 70 religious centers scattered throughout Renton and its sphere of influence. About nine of these facilities are located in the downtown area. Most are located next to or within residential neighborhoods. Trends There is no one trend which can be used to describe these various facilities. For ex- ample, some municipal facilities may become more decentralized in the future while others could do the opposite. Library facilities, at least for the remainder of this decade, are not expected to decentralize. Expectations are that the main facility down- town and the Highlands branch will continue to serve the needs of the community. Most municipal administrative functions are also expected to remain centralized with the development of a new municipal complex in the downtown. Fire services by their nature must be decentralized in order to provide adequate protec- tion for the entire City. As the City grows in population and land area, additional fire Page 12 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities DRAFT 12/16/91 stations will be needed for new and currently underserved areas. The Fire Department Master Plan (March 1987) cites the Kennydale and Tiffany Park neighborhoods and the Green River Valley industrial area as having level of service deficiencies due to the re- sponse time to those areas. In addition, it states, "If annexations occur in the East Kennydale, Sierra Heights, and East Duvall Avenue communities and in the Cedar River corridor, they will have substandard fire protection based on the five-in-five stan- dard and current station locations." The "five -in -five" standard is the department's desired level of service; to have five fire fighters on the scene five minutes after receiv- ing the call. Multiple use of school facilities has been a trend that will likely continue. Several of District 403's facilities are currently being used for non - teaching functions. The old Sartori School in north Renton is currently under lease to Renton Technical College. Administrative offices for the district are located in the old Henry Ford School in downtown. Dimmitt Middle School is currently being used for some special programs with the remainder leased out for office space, although it is slated to eventually return to use as a middle school. Spring Glen Elementary is being used by the Kent School District. District enrollment has been declining overall since its peak in 1970. Table 1 lists total enrollment for the district from 1960 to 1991. While enrollment has declined by 24% since 1970, the rate of decline has slowed from 15 % during the 1970's to 10% during the 1980's. Enrollment is down slightly from 1990 figures but overall it is rela- tively stable. Long term projections anticipate larger enrollments for the district based on increased birth rates for the population in general. TABLE 1 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 1960 1970 1980 1990 1991 9,426 15,464 13,120 11,823 11,779 Institutions like the Valley Medical Center and Renton Technical College are examples of large - scale, campus style developments serving a regional population. Valley Medical Center has regularly been expanding the number and types of services it provides as well as the number and size of facilities located on its campus. In recent years it has expanded beyond the confines of Talbot and Carr Roads and attracted sev- eral related offices and services. The expansion of the center and related development Page 12 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities DRAFT 12/16/91 is expected to continue. Renton Technical College is currently expanding its operations on campus. As its profile in the region increases the need to expand beyond its current boundaries will also increase. The trend over the past decade or so has been for religious groups to provide more services to their members and the public at large. These services require additional land and facilities for schools, gymnasiums, offices, parking, expanded hours of wor- ship and social services. As a result these centers are having a greater impact on adja- cent neighborhoods and the existing infrastructure. Issues • Location and compatibility of local and regional facilities: Local and regional government facilities have many of the same site requirements and result in many of the same impacts as private developments. Like commercial businesses, government facilities need to be conveniently located for the clients (public) they are serving. Fa- cilities may be serving several neighborhoods (e.g. fire station), the entire City (e.g. City hall), or the region (e.g. County courts, land fill). Land use becomes an issue when these uses create noise, traffic, aesthetic and /or safety concerns. • Preservation of cultural amenities: Cultural facilities such as the library and mu- seum are currently located in the downtown and have little impact on adjacent uses. The issues for cultural amenities focus primarily on keeping them in the downtown, when appropriate, and ensuring that as branch libraries are built they will be sited and designed to minimize their impacts on adjacent uses. * Siting of school facilities: Schools help to define neighborhood and community ar- eas. Compared to elementary schools, high schools generate more automobile and bus traffic which can impact adjacent residential neighborhoods. For this reason, high schools are generally better situated outside of neighborhoods on higher level streets. Related uses such as maintenance and athletic facilities must also be sited appropriately to ensure that roads and utilities are adequate and that adverse impacts can be mini- mized. Another important issue related to school facilities is what should happen to the land when the facility is no longer needed for school purposes. ' Planning for large -scale institutions: This issue cuts across government, school, health care, and religious center policies because of the long and short-term planning implications. In addition to the immediate impacts of noise, traffic, aesthetics, and potential environmental hazards, long -range planning must be done to consider future expansion needs of the use. Expansion typically increases the short-terms impacts and can dramatically change the land use patterns and infrastructure needs for the entire area. ` Siting of religious centers: The local issues do not infringe on constitutional protec- tions but relate to land use compatibility and ensuring adequate land and infrastructure Page 12-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities DRAFT 12 /16/91 for the center and surrounding uses. Increased use and size typically mean greater im- pacts which need to be mitigated. By the same token, as religious centers' land needs increase the locational criteria must also be examined. Scenarios for the Future Trends are irregular and unpredictable at best. Plans must be dynamic and policies flexible to keep up with the changing conditions. • Local and regional facilities: Population growth is expected to continue in this area during the planning period and the need for local and regional facilities will grow along with it. More significantly, if the current growth pattern for the metropolitan area continues the trend of decentralizing regional services will increase the number of re- gional facilities being located in this area. The proposed regional justice center is a re- cent example. Decentralized local services such as fire protection will also become more prevalent as the City grows in population ar.J land area. ' Cultural amenities: A significant increase in cultural and historic amenities is not expected to occur during the remainder of this century. The existing library facilities in downtown, the Highlands, Fairwood and Skyway are projected to meet demands. The most likely trend is that some of the older structures in Renton may gain historic recognition through the King County Historic Preservation Program. Increased cultural activities such as Renton River Days and the theater groups could heighten Renton's profile in the region and foster more activity downtown. • School facilities: Although there is no indication that enrollment figures will change dramatically in the short-term, recent increases in the birth rate and relatively stable employment in this area point to potential increases during the remainder of this decade. When enrollment begins to increase in the district, the City and adjacent land users will still need to address the impacts of facilities and how they are used. If en- rollment does decline, the district will be faced with disposing of facilities and proper- ties it no longer needs. ' Large -scale institutions: As institutions increase in size they will have greater im- pacts on the transportation and utility systems and adjacent land uses. A "catch -22" situation can easily develop as institutions expand to meet demand and simultaneously create adverse conditions (i.e. traffic congestion, inefficient land use patterns) which make them less desirable to their potential markets. ' Religious centers: The number, size and intensity of use for religious centers is ex- pected to increase. As a result, they may no longer be welcome in residential neigh- borhoods. By the same token, centers may be looking for larger parcels of land which are more accessible to their members and provide room for expansion. Page 12 -5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities POLICIES DRAFT 12 /16/91 PUBLIC FACILITIES GOAL: Develop a system of facilities which meet the public and quasi- public service needs of present and future Renton residents. I. Local Objective 1.0: Site and design municipal facilities to provide the most efficient and convenient service for the clientele while minimizing the adverse impacts on surround- ing uses. Policy 1.6: Site design of municipal Policy 1.1: Municipal government facilities should be encouraged to functions which are people intensive maximize public access to and use of should be located in the City's down- public areas as well as shoreline areas town district. in locations contiguous to a river, lake, or stream. Policy 1.2: Facilities should be com- patible in design and intensity (e.g. sig- nage; building height, bulk and set- back; landscaping; parking) with less intensive adjacent uses. Policy 1.3: Site and building design should be oriented primarily toward pedestrians, especially in the downtown area, with provisions for transit and automobiles as well. Policy 1.4: Vacant municipal proper- ties (i.e. sites and buildings) should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to mitigate adverse visual, economic, and health /safety impacts on the surround- ing area. Policy 1.5: Whenever practical, municipal facilities should relate to ex- isting public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas). Page 12-6 Policy 1.7: Facilities should be located within pedestrian range of an existing or planned transit stop. Policy 1.8: Parking should be located to the side and rear of the property and should mitigate impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy 1.9: Primary vehicular access to sites should be from principal or minor arterials. Policy 1.10: Public amenity features (e.g. plazas, trails, art work) should be incorporated into municipal projects. Policy 1.11: Large -scale facilities should be master - planned to be consis- tent with local and regional compre- hensive plans. Policy 1.12: Fire stations should be located on principal or minor arterials. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities Policy 1.13: Future fire stations should be sited central to their service area with as few barriers as possible in order to achieve minimum response times. Policy 1.14: Land for future fire sta- tions should be acquired in advance in areas where the greatest amount of de- velopment is anticipated. Policy 1.15: Site and building design of police facilities providing direct ser- vice to the general public should be easily accessible. Policy 1.16: Major functions of the police should be centralized in the downtown. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 1.17: Satellite police facilities may be located outside of the down- town. Policy 1.18: New growth should pay its proportionate share of the cost for facilities necessitated by that growth. Discussion: These policies are intended to provide location and site design cri- teria for municipal facilities, other than library and recreational facilities, serving the local population. Uses in this category may be one -of -a -kind, such as the municipal complex and maintenance shops, or they may be scattered throughout the City serving specific areas such as fire stations and utility substations. II. Regional Objective 2.0: Site and design regional facilities to provide the most efficient and convenient service for the clientele while minimizing the adverse impacts on adjacent uses and the City as a whole. Policy 2.1: Regional facilities which provide services on -site to the public -at- large on a daily basis (i.e. office uses) should be located in the City's down- town district. Policy 2.2: Siting of regional facilities which are specialized (e.g. landfills, maintenance shops) or serve a limited segment of the population (e.g. justice centers) should rely more strongly on the special locational needs of the facil- ity and the compatibility of the facility with surrounding uses. Policy 2.3: Facilities should be com- patible in design and intensity (e.g. sig- nage; building height, bulk and set- back; landscaping; parking) with less intensive adjacent uses. Page 12 -7 Policy 2.4: Site and building design should be oriented primarily toward pedestrians, especially in the downtown area, with provisions for transit and automobiles as well. Policy 2.5: Vacant properties (i.e. sites and buildings) should be maintained and /or treated as appropriate (e.g. screened, mowed, landscaped) to miti- gate adverse visual, economic, and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities health /safety impacts on the surround- ing area. Policy 2.6: Whenever practical, re- gional facilities should relate to existing public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas). Policy 2.7: Site design of regional fa- cilities should be encouraged to maxi- mize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in loca- tions contiguous to a river, lake, or stream. Policy 2.8: Facilities should be located within pedestrian range of an existing or planned transit stop. Policy 2.9: Parking should be located to the side and rear of the property and should mitigate impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy 2.10: Primary vehicular access to sites should be from principal arterial streets. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 2.11: Public amenity features (e.g. plazas, trails, art work) should be incorporated into regional facility de- velopments. Policy 2.12: Large -scale facilities should be master - planned to be consis- tent with local and regional compre- hensive plans. Discussion: Like the local policies, these are intended to provide guidance for Renton's share of regional facilities without creating any undue hardship on the local populace. Regional facilities raise a myriad of policy issues. While regional in nature, they generally serve area residents as well and create jobs which contribute to the local economy. On the other hand, regional facilities may be at odds with local desires and attitudes. Examples of regional facili- ties include the State and County main- tenance centers, public safety facilities, public health centers, and solid waste facilities. III. Cultural Objective 3.0: Preserve the cultural amenities and heritage of Renton. Policy 3.1: Cultural facilities which do not have specific locational needs should be encouraged to locate in the downtown. Policy 3.2: The downtown library should continue to be the regional facil- ity for this area. Page 12 -8 Policy 3.3: When branch libraries are developed, they should be located to provide convenient access to a majority of their clientele. Policy 3.4: Future branch libraries and other satellite services may be located in mixed use developments to serve concentrations of clients in those areas. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities Policy 3.5: Officially designated his- torical sites should be preserved and /or incorporated into all development pro- jects. Policy 3.6: Officially designated his- toric structures should be preserved to the extent physically and economically feasible and used for a purpose which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 3.7: Facilities should employ mitigation measures (e.g. limited sig- nage, increased setbacks, greater land- DRAFT 12 /16/91 scaping, screened parking) to ensure compatibility with less intensive adja- cent uses. Discussion: The Renton Historical Museum, library system, and local the- atrical groups provide cultural activities and identity for Renton. These policies are designed to recognize the impor- tance of preserving the City's culture and its heritage. The policies provide guidance for locating facilities and en- hancing the existing cultural base through linkages with other land uses. IV. Schools Objective 4.0: Assure adequate land at appropriate locations for facilities which meet the life -long educational needs of area residents. Policy 4.1: Siting and development of school facilities should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be coordinated between the school district and the City. Policy 4.2: Alternative funding sources (e.g. impact fees) should be explored for facilities necessitated by new devel- opment. Policy 4.3: The City and the school district should jointly develop multiple use facilities (e.g. playgrounds, sports fields) whenever practical. Policy 4.4: Community use of school sites and facilities for non - school ac- tivities should be encouraged. Policy 4.5: Facilities which are planned for closure should be consid- ered for potential public use before be- ing sold for private development. Policy 4.6: School sites which are re- developed for a different use should comply with development standards for surrounding uses. Policy 4.7: Elementary schools should be located near a collector arterial street. Policy 4.8: Safe pedestrian access to schools should be promoted (e.g. through pedestrian linkages, safety fea- tures) through the design of new subdi- visions and roadway improvements. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities Policy 4.9: Vehicular access to middle schools, senior high schools and other large -scale facilities (e.g. bus mainte- nance shops, sports facilities) should be from minor or principal arterial streets. Policy 4.10: Post secondary and other regional facilities should be located on and have access to principal arterial streets. Policy 4.11: Large -scale facilities (i.e. high schools and above, sports fields) should be master - planned to be consis- tent with local and regional compre- hensive plans; expansion of these fa- cilities should be limited until the mas- ter plans have been approved by the City. Policy 4.12: Sites and structures should be designed (e.g. building height, orientation, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking; outdoor activity areas) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses and transportation corridors. Policy 4.13: Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Policy 4.14: Site design should be en- couraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake or stream. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 4.15: Large -scale regional fa- cilities (i.e. post- secondary) should: a) be encouraged (i.e. through in- centives or similar means) to include public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas); b) provide parking on -site, in parking structures, and buffer it from adjacent uses; c) be located contiguous to an ex- isting or planned transit route; and d) be located in close proximity to commercial centers and major employment areas. Discussion: Education facilities in Renton consist of a system of public and private pre -, primary, secondary and special needs schools; Renton Techni- cal College; City University; athletic centers; and operations uses. The pur- pose of the policies in this section is to ensure the compatibility of these uses as well as to ensure that adequate land will be available for their development and expansion when the need arises. V. Health Care Objective 5.0: Assure that adequate land and infrastructure are available for the de- velopment and expansion of facilities to serve the health care needs of the area. Page 12 -10 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities Policy 5.1: Large -scale regional facili- ties should: a) be encouraged to include a mix of uses (e.g. retail, residential, services, office); b) provide parking on -site, in parking structures, and buffer it from adjacent uses; c) be located in areas with imme- diate access to an Interstate or a State route and in areas at the intersection of two principal ar- terials; d) be master - planned to be consis- tent with local and regional comprehensive plans; e) limit expansion of existing cen- ters until master plans are ap- proved by the City; f) be located in close proximity to community or regional com- mercial centers; and g) provide vehicular access to the site from a principal arterial street with the number of access points minimized but designed to ease entrance and exit. Policy 5.2: Sites and structures of all health care facilities should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses and transportation corridors. Policy 5.3: Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 5.4: Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged (i.e. through in- centives or similar means) as part of every development. Policy 5.5: Site design of health care facilities should be encouraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake or stream. Policy 5.6: Site and building design should be transit and pedestrian /people oriented. Policy 5.7: Small -scale health care facilities (e.g. minor emergency clinics, practitioner offices) should be encour- aged to locate in neighborhood and community commercial centers. Discussion: Health care involves various types of uses including hospi- tals, trauma centers, minor emergency clinics, extended care facilities, mental health centers, and specialized treat- ment centers. There is no distinction made in the policies between for-profit and not-for-profit facilities since their land use impacts are the same.pi- cally, health care uses generate more traffic than other office uses, function all day every day, and generate some hazardous wastes. The focus of the policies is to provide guidance on how these types of uses can best be sited to provide convenient access for their clientele while ensuring that uses on the site do not adversely impact adjacent uses, many of which are likely to be residential. Page 12 -11 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities DRAFT 12 /16/91 VI. Religious Centers Objective 6.0: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner which provides con- venient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy 6.1: When located in predomi- nantly residential areas, religious facili- ties should be on the periphery of the residential area rather than the interior. Policy 6.2: Large -scale centers should be master - planned to be consistent with local and regional comprehensive plans. Policy 6.3: Parking should be provided on -site and buffered from adjacent uses. Policy 6.4: Sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent less intensive land uses. Policy 6.5: Site design should be en- couraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake or stream. Policy 6.6: Large -scale centers should be encouraged to locate contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Policy 6.7: Religious centers should be located on and have direct access to ei- ther a principal, minor, or collector ar- terial street. Discussion: These policies are intended to provide guidance for the siting and design of facilities to ensure that they will have adequate land and trans- portation access for present and future needs and to ensure that they will be compatible with adjacent uses. Incor- porated in the definition of religious centers are churches, synagogues, tem- ples, mosques, shrines, holy sites, and ancillary uses and facilities. The defi- nition is broad to include any type of facility for which the primary purpose is protected under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Ancillary uses and facilities means such things as community centers, parking areas, so- cial service centers, and educational facilities which might not be included in the schools section. While these poli- cies are in no way intended to infringe on the right of these facilities to exist, there are land use implications which local jurisdictions are able and obli- gated to address. Page 12 -12 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies DRAFT 12 /16/91 The following strategy statements are intended to provide general concepts for how the policies might be implemented: 1. Assure appropriate siting and compatibility of local and regional government facilities: a. apply the same site design standards as for private developments; b. work in cooperation with the county and other local jurisdictions to develop guidelines for siting and designing regional facilities; c. cone! iue the City's commitment to locating people intensive functions in the downtown; and d. prepare long -range master plans for locating decentralized services. 2. Preserve cultural amenities: a. continue the City's commitment to locating cultural activities and facilities in the downtown; and b. explore the potential benefits and liabilities of establishing a local historic designation program. 3. Assure the compatible siting and development of school facilities: a. work in close cooperation with the local districts in the planning of school properties; b. continue to pursue joint development and maintenance of multi -use facilities; and c. explore the potential for the City acquiring surplus school properties. 4. Foster compatibility of large -scale regional institutions: a. master plan the entire development to meet existing and projected land needs; b. establish review criteria and standards which address at a minimum: signage, building height, building bulk, building setback, landscaping, buffering, public /pedestrian space, and type of on -site parking (structured), on -site vehicle Page 12 -13 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities rmrtt,t. .. n" ,nt;t;...^.':+3.'�±:n:Rf:Xf' ?.z `' 6' x; i" �2; Stv�nv .12tt;•r_twsr+n...w,............ DRAFT 12 /16/91 and pedestrian circulation, pedestrian linkages with existing or proposed trails, paths and sidewalks; c. identify areas which could accommodate these types of facilities; d. create regulatory incentives to encourage integration of public amenities such as parks, plazas, and recreation area; and e. incorporate the mixed use concept into appropriate ordinances. 5. Assure the compatibility of religious centers: a. work in cooperation with religious groups to develop long -range master plans for large -scale facilities; and b. develop compatible standards and site design techniques to minimize the impacts on adjacent uses. Implementation 1. Develop a process and criteria for siting and designing large -scale institutional uses. 2. Prepare master plans for the municipal facilities, including general locations and phasing of facilities. 3. Revise the City Code, as appropriate, to reflect the letter and intent of these policies. Page 12 -14 E CHAPTER 13 UTILITIES DISCUSSION DRAFT 12 /16/91 The purpose of the utility policies is to provide a general framework for improvement and expansion of domestic water, sewer, storm water and waste management services within the City. Utility policies also speak to the provision of telephone, electricity, natural gas, and cable services by privately owned purveyors. Background and Existing Conditions The City of Renton requires municipal services including domestic water, sanitary sewer, stormwater and waste management to areas within the current City boundaries. The City is also the purveyor of domestic water outside of its boundaries. Physical growth and increased population has increased the size of the City from one square mile in 1901 to over 16 square miles in 1991. Water Currently, the City of Renton provides water service to an area approximately 60 square miles in size with more than 12,000 customers. These customers are classified by land use: single family residential, multi - family residential, commercial, public, or wholesale. Single family and multifamily customers are the largest water users, con- suming almost 70 percent of the City's demand. Water demand is calculated based on an equivalent residential unit (ERU). Each single family residential unit is equal to one ERU, while each apartment or condominium is equal to 0.6 ERUs. Water demand for other uses is based on actual use and the ERU is determined based on the corresponding number of single family residences that would have been required to produce the same demand. The existing water supply for the City is obtained from six wells and one artesian spring. Connections to Seattle's Cedar River and Bow Lake supply pipelines provide emergency back -up supply. Currently, wells provide about 95 percent of the City's supply capacity. The existing water system for the City is comprised of six reservoirs (a seventh reser- voir is under construction) and about 35.5 miles of conveyance pipeline. Springbrook Springs, located four miles south of the City center, has supplied about two percent of the City's water supply on a continuous basis since 1901. City watershed land sur- rounds the springs. The flow from the springs varies seasonally, indicating that the spring water is derived from snow melting on the western slopes of the Cascade Page 13 -1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities DRAFT 12/16/91 Mountains. Approximately two million gallons of water is produced by the springs on a daily basis; however, this amount is reduced to between 1.75 and 1.50 million gal- lons per day (mgd) during late August and early September. The State of Washington has granted Renton water rights for 4.64 mgd. Groundwater from the Cedar River Aquifer supplies the City's wells producing up to 16 mgd or about 95 percent of the City's drinking water. This aquifer has historically provided substantial volumes of very high quality drinking water. But because of the shallow nature of the aquifer it is susceptible to contamination within the aquifer recharge area. Renton's unique landform characteristics include four hills located near the periphery of the service area, three valleys (each with a different river flowing through it), and geo- logic characteristics ranging from hard rock outcrops to deep sand deposits. The city's water system is separated into twelve hydraulically different pressure zones to accom- modate the differences in topography throughout the City. Physical barriers such as the hills and valley prevent the extension of pressure zones from one location to another. Ten water systems operate adjacent to the Renton service area, and most of these other systems are supplied by the City of Seattle on a wholesale rate basis. Renton is unique in that the City is able to provide for most of its own domestic water supply from the aquifer, and does not rely on water from other sources. Storm Drainage Storm drainage systems within the City have typically evolved through land develop- ment and road construction activities. As wet areas were filled and roadways con- structed, pipes were installed to drain areas and provide sites for development. More recently, storm drainage has incorporated natural systems such as biofiltration swales as part of its stormwater management practices. The City is currently in the process of developing a master plan for stormwater management within the City. Storm drainage service levels are intended to protect public and private properties from flooding or erosion for storm events of a selected probability (10, 25, and 100 -year events). Further, the City's system is intended to bring the City into compliance with existing or forthcoming state and federal water quality regulations. The City currently has approximately 100 miles of 24 -inch trunk line and 19 miles of 12 -inch lateral line in its stormwater system. Page 13 -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities Sewer DRAFT 12 /16/91 The City owns, operates and maintains its own sanitary sewer system made up of ERUs 153 miles of gravity flow sewer line. Untreated wastewater is conveyed to facilities operated by the regional sewer system (Metro) and treated at the regional (Metro) fa- cility in Renton. Approximately 70 percent of the land area and 80 percent of the population is served by sanitary sewers. This translates to over 10,000 customer connections served by the sewer utility. Sanitary sewers were first constructed in Renton in 1910 to dispose of wastewater in the downtown area. Prior to 1910, wastewater had either been disposed of on -site or discharged to the local estuaries. Collection and treatment facilities in the City developed as industry grew and the City's population increased. A secondary wastewater treatment plant was constructed near the site of the Renton High School stadium in the 1950s. This facility discharged treated wastewater to the Cedar River. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) was formed in 1958 to find solutions to the problem of pollution in Puget Sound, Lake Washington and surrounding water- ways. A regional plan was developed for wastewater collection and treatment. By 1962, Metro had assumed operating responsibility for regional interceptors and waste treatment systems, including Renton's secondary treatment facility. A new plant pro- viding secondary treatment was constructed during the late 1950s and early 1960s. This facility is located near Grady Way and Monster Road and discharges to the Duwamish Waterway. This plant operates today as one of Metro's regional treatment facilities. The sewer service area of the City is divided into six major treatment basins, each with at least one sub - basin. Wastewater collection basins generally follow natural drainage patterns of the Renton service area. The utility systems surrounding the existing ser- vice area limit the expansion of the City's sewer system. Solid Waste The City contracts with a private corporation for waste disposal services within the City. Solid waste and recyclables are picked up weekly while yard wastes are picked up every other week. The solid waste service is mandated by City ordinance and cus- tomers are served on a fixed rate structure. Waste is delivered to one of three transfer or landfill locations, then transported to the Cedar Hills landfill operated by King County. Page 13 -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities DRAFT 12/16/91 The Solid Waste Utility operates a recycling program which diverted a total of 44 per- cent of the total residential waste stream in 1990. In addition, public education and commercial recycling projects are facilitated through the Solid Waste Utility. Private Utilities Natural gas, telephone service, natural gas, electricity and cable service will be addressed as part of the Utility Master Plan. Trends Washington State's approach to growth management requires that urban development not occur in areas until adequate urban services are in place to support that develop- ment. As Renton grows and expands within its sphere of influence or urban growth boundaries, adequate sewer, water and stormwater services will need to be provided concurrent with development. "Equivalent Residential Units ", ERUs, as the basic unit of supply are a priority of the utilities and are reflected in their comprehensive supply plans. Issues The goal, objectives and policies in this chapter are designed to address several issues related to utility service. * Providing and extending utilities concurrent with development: Utility exten- sions in the past have resulted in the availability of some, but not all services and led to premature development. Ultimately, the environment or public health and safety can be threatened if utility services are inadequate. For example, on -site wastewater treat- ment can have adverse impacts on groundwater quality in some areas. * Coordination with adjacent utility purveyors, especially in annexation and urban growth areas: City growth boundaries are not necessarily consistent with utility service district boundaries. Areas outside the current City limits may actually fall within the service areas for adjacent utility purveyors. In order for the City to assume utility services in some areas, a certain amount of the other utility district's area must fall within the City's urban growth area. The coordination of neighboring utility pur- veyors with the City is essential to the provision of adequate services. * Coordination with private utility purveyors for solid waste, electricity, natural gas, cable and telephone services: Several private utility purveyors contract for ser- vices with the City or serve the region -at- large. Renton is also the location of major utility ERUs for private and regional utility systems. It is important that coordination occur between the City and utilities to ensure co- location of transmission corridors where possible. Page 13-4 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities DRAFT 12 /16/91 * Protection of groundwater and environmental resources: Portions of the City include environmentally sensitive or critical areas such as steep slopes and wetlands which are sensitive to development. In addition, the City's sole source aquifer under- lies areas within the City's boundaries. Development may be limited in these areas, or be subject to stringent regulations to protect the environment and the public health and safety. Scenarios for the Future Existing utility systems and facilities are in need of upgrading and repair in order to serve the existing population. The first order of business proposed under the City's utility plans is to improve existing systems rather than expand the system. Future ex- pansion will take place according to current and future adopted land use plans. Prema- ture development will be discouraged because utilities will not be extended until land use plans indicate that areas are appropriate for development consistent with state growth management strategies: Renton will be responsible for allowing or preventing residential, industrial and commercial growth in the City and future growth areas, and managing the utility systems that would adequately and appropriately serve that devel- opment. The provision of utility services will be contingent upon the coordination of land use decisions and protection of the public health, safety, welfare and the environ- ment. POLICIES UTILITIES GOAL: Provide an adequate level of public utilities (sewer, water, surface water, solid waste) in response to and consistent with land use, protection of the environment, and annexation goals and policies. I. Utilities Objective 1.0: Provide and maintain safe, reliable and adequate utility services for the City's current and future service areas to meet peak anticipated demands. Policy 1.1: Timely and orderly exten- sion of water, sewer, and stormwater services should be provided within the City's existing and future service areas to meet the public health and safety re- quirements. Page 13 -5 Policy 1.2: Water, sewer and stormwater facilities and services should be in place prior to occupancy of devel- opment projects. _ _� W_T_..__..._...._.,.. ......,..�..........r..r.�..,,. raw. k.�r.�r...Ay...- n...,.p :hY!,... v�t„ ..... Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities Policy 1.3: Implementation and coor- dination programs for the improvement, phasing and financing of water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure should be developed consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.4: Private utility purveyors (e.g., telephone, cable, natural gas and electricity) should be required to pro- vide complete utility systems to ap- proved development projects in accor- dance with City of Renton regulations and standards. Policy 1.5: New telephone and electric utility lines should be installed under- ground within the City except on single family residential large lot develop- ments (greater than 5 acres). New util- ity structures, towers and high voltage transmission lines should be designed appropriate to their surroundings when- ever practical. Policy 1.6: All development should be required to pay an equitable share of construction costs for improvements to the water, sanitary sewer and stormwa- DRAFT 12 /16/91 ter system necessitated by that devel- opment. Discussion: The importance of provid- ing adequate utilities, to areas within the City, in a timely manner is stated in these overall policies. The policies reaffirm the intent of the State's ap- proach to growth management which requires that public facilities and ser- vices are adequate at the time of occu- pancy; and that service levels are not decreased below established minimum standards. The burden of funding util- ity extensions or improvemems is as- signed to development to relieve the City of this responsibility. In addition, the City is responsible for managing the provision of public services to the City's growth areas, consistent with adopted policies for annexation areas. Private utilities would be required to meet City codes and ordinances. Appropriate siting of utility structures, towers, an- tennas and lines is encouraged, and un- dergrounding of utility lines, when practical, is suggested per Section 4 -23- 1 of the City Code. II. Water Objective 2.0: Provide and maintain a consistent, ample and safe water supply for the City and future service areas. Policy 2.1: The availability of ade- quate fire flow should be assured prior to the issuance of commercial or indus- trial building permits or the approval of residential sub - divisions. Page 13-6 Policy 2.2: Water resources should be protected to assure continued long -term, high quality groundwater and surface water supplies. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities Policy 2.3: The City should promote efficient and responsible use of water (i.e. through conservation). Policy 2.4: The City's aquifer should be managed in order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of potable water to meet current and future water needs. Policy 2.5: The intensity and type of development should be limited in the aquifer protection area to those types of development that do not create adverse impacts on the aquifer. Policy 2.6: New alternative source supplies of potable water should be de- veloped through wells or other sources. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 2.7: Water supply sources (i.e. wells, and Springbrook Springs) should be protected from uses and activities which have been determined to be haz- ardous to these sources. Discussion: These policies recognize the importance and vulnerability of the City's sole source aquifer and seek to manage and protect the aquifer, wells and springs for domestic potable sup- plies and adequate fire flow. Protec- tion of the aquifer is not the only means to guarantee adequate future supplies; therefore, the policies advo- cate conservation of water resources and development of alternative sup- plies. M. Storm Drainage Objective 3.0: Provide and maintain an adequate storm drainage system that minimizes the impacts on natural drainage systems and protects the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater throughout the drainage basin. Policy 3.1: Storm drainage systems should be designed to minimize poten- tial erosion and sedimentation prob- lems, and to preserve natural drainage systems including rivers, streams, floodplains, lakes, ponds and significant wetlands. Policy 3.2: Renton should encourage the retention of natural vegetation along lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams, where appropriate, in order to help pre- serve water quality, protect fishery re- sources, and control erosion and runoff. Policy 3.3: Filling of natural water- courses should be prohibited unless the channel is modified to meet City drainage standards. Policy 3.4: Existing natural drainages, watercourses, ravines and other similar land features should be protected from the adverse erosional effects of in- creased stormwater runoff. Policy 3.5: Storm drainage programs should be coordinated with adjacent lo- cal and regional jurisdictions. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities Policy 3.6: Groundwater resources should be protected from pollutants en- tering via the storm drainage system. Policy 3.7: Promote local funding for the stormwater program through the Storm Water Utility. Discussion: Proper design, and main- tenance of the stormwater system in the DRAFT 12 /16/91 City and the region protects property from the effects of flooding and erosion. These policies encourage the retention of natural drainage systems, and the coordination of local and regional stormwater management. IV. Sanitary Sewers Objective 4.0: Provide and maintain a sanitary sewer collection system that is consistent with the public health and water quality objectives of the State of Washington and the City of Renton. Policy 4.1: All new developments should be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system except large lot single family residential development (5 acre lots or greater) located away from environmentally sensitive areas and outside of aquifer recharge areas. Policy 4.2: Sewer connections should be provided in presently unsewered ar- eas if the areas, by remaining unsew- ered, pose a health hazard to the aquifer, or if other groundwater con- tamination occurs. Policy 4.3: Adequate sewer service capacity should be assured prior to the approval of any new development ap- plication (e.g. short plat, long plat, multi - family, commercial and indus- trial development). Policy 4.4: Sewer service should be expanded so that the current levels of service are maintained through build - out of the adopted land use classifica- tions. Page 13 -8 Policy 4.5: Excess sewer capacity alone should not be sufficient grounds for challenging the existing zoning for the area. Policy 4.6: The City should coordi- nate with the regional wastewater agency and adjacent jurisdictions in the planning and maintenance of the sewer systems in the region. Policy 4.7: Development should be conditioned on the orderly and timely provision of sanitary sewers. Policy 4.8: The City should require coordination with the regional wastewa- ter agency to ensure that sewer lines passing through Renton are operated in a safe manner at all times. Discussion: These policies would require that new development within the City connect to the sanitary sewer system in order to protect the public health and safety. Approval of new '. v..::?..e��KUf's•8:'i1�T Y7' it! v:.::. �3%tISIV.::uu.twrw...-.....- Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities development would be contingent upon the availability of sanitary sewers DRAFT 12 /16/91 which are adequate to support new de- velopment. V. Solid Waste Objective 5.0: Provide and maintain an adequate system of solid waste collection and disposal to meet existing and future needs. Policy 5.1: Renton should coordinate with regional agencies in planning for needs, facilities and services of solid waste collection and disposal. Policy 5.2: Reduction of the waste stream should be supported and pro- moted (i.e. through programs and public education including recycling, composting, re -use and energy recov- ery programs that meet environmental standards). Policy 5.3: The proper handling and disposal of solid waste should be re- quired to protect the public health and safety. Policy 5.4: Contamination of land, air, and water should be minimized or eliminated. Discussion: These policies seek to reduce the waste stream through a va- riety of methods. Further, the protec- tion of natural resources is emphasized by proper handling and disposal of solid waste. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies Strategies direct the policies by suggesting the types of actions that will need to occur to realize the utilities goal. General strategies which address the key issues outlined are presented below. More specific strategies will be developed to accompany each of the adopted policies. 1. Appropriate timing, provision and extension of infrastructure: a. monitor utilization of utilities and track system improvements; Page 13 -9 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities .v iit�nt,tt +,pia_ is.,.'r;r,�i <.v,litic•,•.-.Y3,r . �:*Y':rg_7+¢Ya�.i:a1yiWyy.7".7 DRAFT 12 /16/91 b. develop funding mechanisms to pay for improvements and extensions on an equitable basis; and c. reduce demand of utility services through public education, conservation and re- cycling. 2. Coordinate the extension of utilities in the Urban Growth Area: a. develop agreements with private utility purveyors; and b. strengthen land use controls and zoning. 3. Protect the groundwater resources: a. regulate the transportation of hazardous materials within aquifer protection ar- eas; b. limit activities and land uses within the aquifer protection area; c. promote construction practices that protect the aquifer from contaminants; d. develop an emergency plan to respond to possible contamination incidents in the aquifer recharge area; e. regulate the use of pesticides, de -icing agents and other pollutants within the aquifer; and f. coordinate with owners /operators of petroleum pipelines to provide secondary containment and flexible joints for sections in aquifer recharge areas. 4. Protect overall environmental quality: a. use on -site detention and filtration systems for development located within criti- cal drainage areas; b. require emergency back -up power supply and emergency overflow monitoring and storage for sewer lift and pump stations; and c. coordinate with the state and federal government to encourage waste reduction during manufacturing, packaging and handling of products or materials. Page 13 -10 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Utilities DRAFT 12/16/91 Implementation 1. Revise the City Code as appropriate to reflect the policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2. Develop and maintain a Comprehensive Utilities Plan. 3. Develop and maintain a phasing and financing program for the improvement and extension of utilities within the City's urban growth boundaries. 4. Develop and maintain agreements with private purveyors for the provision of ser- vices within the City and urban growth areas. Page 13 -11 DRAFT 12 /16/91 CHAPTER 14 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation DRAFT 12 /16/91 The City has established an urban growth boundary which defines the limits of future annexation. Any or all portions of unincorporated territory within the sphere of influ- ence can be annexed to the City. Annexation requires the approval of the King County Boundary Review Board, the City Council and depending upon the method of annexa- tion, the approval of the property owners or voters within the proposed annexation area The sphere of influence boundary is still open to negotiation with surrounding jurisdictions and King County. (See Map 14 -1) Trends The City has historically undertaken annexation in response to requests from local property owners. For many years most annexations were of small areas which were al- ready urbanized. In recent years, however, the City has begun to annex more vacant areas which are in the process of being developed. Although the City has considered annexations of large urbanized areas such as Skyway and Soos Creek, there has not been any annexation of this type for many years. The City has recently considered a large scale annexation within the Soos Creek area, however, this annexation proposal is currently on hold. There are currently no guidelines used to evaluate annexation pro- posals. Currently, when an area is annexed into the City it is zoned for single family develop- ment regardless of its comprehensive plan land use designation. Development of other types of land uses within annexed areas requires rezoning. Issues * Defining Annexation Areas: The City must define the areas in which future urban growth and annexations will occur. This process will require reevaluating the sphere of influence and urban growth boundary lines with other local planning agencies. * City Approach to Annexation: The City has the option to be aggressive or passive in its pursuit of annexations within urban areas. The City can also establish guidelines to review future annexations of continue without any review criteria. In the past, the City has tended to take a passive approach to annexation without the benefit of any guidelines. * Timing of Annexation: Annexation which occurs before an area is ready to be de- veloped can overextend and cause inefficiencies in provision of services. Annexation can also be a catalyst for urbanization and may instigate development before it is ap- propriate. * Establishing Annexation Boundaries: Annexation areas which are small and ir- regular create problems in efficiently providing City services and utilities to these ar- eas. They can also create confusion among local residents. Annexations of small in- cremental areas have led to a very irregular City boundary. * Inconsistency between County and City Plan: Urban growth occurring within the Page 14 -2 DRAFT This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed to survey accuracy, Intended for city purposes only and based on the best information available as of the date shown. This material is owned and copyrighted by The City of Renton e„ } Oco\ ti by CD CD r+ tea \ 1 He y • co 0 n r co... pco N CD • .. O 0 0 0 0 aauani;ui 3o aiagds 0 -. 0 b 0.. ' O O - "1 r* LC not }e'}s a.I!!I 0 spsog upyi H I • `f y a4 N' C' 0 co co cn Fyo w En cn P p co co Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation DRAFT 12 /16/91 county typically does not conform to City plans. Many discrepancies exist between City and County plans and policies. These differences include variations in land use locations, densities and requirements for urban services. * Treatment of Newly Annexed Areas: The City must decide how to transition areas from County to City governance. This transition must address inconsistencies between City and County land use patterns, development standards and urban services. The City may wish to ignore or make allowances for continuation of these inconsistencies or take an active approach to resolve these differences to conform with City plans and policies. * Following Established Plans and Policies: The City currently does not apply comprehensive plan land use designations to newly annexed areas. The City now must address inconsistencies between comprehensive plan land use designations and zoning within newly annexed areas. Scenarios for the Future One option for the City is to continue the status quo approach by approving only prop- erty owner requested annexations without guidelines. This approach would result in in- cremental and irregular growth of the City in response to uncoordinated property owner requests for annexation. This policy would allow property owners to act as the primary agent in determining the growth of the City. The other option available to the City is to take a more systematic approach to annexa- tion using a set of criteria to evaluate and propose annexations of both small and large areas. Annexations would only be allowed if they satisfied the standards established to review potential annexations. Although this approach would still allow property own- ers to petition for annexation, it would allow the City to serve as the primary agent in determining the growth of the City. POLICIES ANNEXATION GOAL: The City of Renton shall actively pursue annexations. I. Potential Annexation Areas Objective 1.0: Support annexations of county areas which are urban in character or are potentially urban. Page 14-3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation Policy 1.1: The City should continue to recognize the area within the sphere of influence boundary as the territory in which the City of Renton has an inher- ent interest in future land use decisions. Policy 1.2: The City should encourage annexation of all territory within the urban growth limit line. Specific an- nexation proposals should be evaluated against the annexation criteria outlined below. Policy 1.3: Areas where the availabil- ity of infrastructure and services allows for the development of urban densities should be annexed to the City of Ren- ton. The City of Renton should be the primary service provider of urban in- frastructure and services in the resultant city. Policy 1.4: The immediate areas for annexation to the City of Renton should include the territory contiguous with boundaries of the City such as: a. peninsulas and islands of unin- corporated land; b. neighborhoods where municipal services have been extended (Exhibit 1); c. vacant lands subject to devel- opment pressure; d. developed areas where urban services are needed to correct degradation of natural resources; e. lands which are available for urbanization under county com- prehensive plan, zoning, and subdivision regulations; and f. aquifer recharge areas. DRAFT 12 /16/91 Policy 1.5: The City should work closely with King County to establish an urban /rural boundary line. The fol- lowing criteria should be the basis of establishing such a line: a. location of environmentally sensitive areas; b. desired density for future devel- opment; c. population allocation; d. efficient utilization of urban in- frastructure, such as sewer, wa- ter and roads; e. coordination of sewer extension in Water District 90; f. adopted plans and policies of the City and King County; g. coordination of development standards between jurisdictions; and h. identification of community sep- arator areas. Discussion: The boundary represents an area within which people may want an opportunity to annex to the City of Renton. Given a number of factors such as topography, existing and planned land uses, population, fiscal concerns, transportation systems, sewer and water utilities, governmental ser- vices, and community values, this area may eventually become a part of Ren- ton. Page 14-4 Growth boundaries and sphere of influence lines establish the geographic limits of future annexation actions. They mark urban growth areas within Comprehensive Pien Land Use Element Annexation the county that could eventually become a part of the City of Renton. Annexations should not occur beyond these boundaries. Annexation proposals within these boundaries will be consid- ered and allowed. Just because a pro- posed annexation is located within the annexation area, however, does not DRAFT 12/16/91 guarantee its approval. Any annexation proposal is subject to the appropriate review and approval process. H. Review Criteria for Annexations Objective 2.0: Promote annexations which would enhance the quality of life in the re- sultant City of Renton, maldng the City a good place to work, live, play and raise families. Policy 2.1: Support annexations which would result in future improvements to the resultant City of Renton services through potential enhancements to lev- els of service or through elimination of duplication by service providers. Ser- vices include water, sanitary sewers, storm water drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation, park and open space, and public safety. Policy 2.2: Encourage annexations of areas in which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services. Policy 2.3: Support annexations which would facilitate an appropriate balance between the provision of jobs and the availability of housing. Policy 2.4: Promote annexations which would simplify governmental structure in annexing areas and /or the resultant City of Renton. Policy 2.5: Promote annexations which would include those who already use City services or who impact City infras- tructure. Policy 2.6: Support annexations of ru- ral areas which would remain rural in character in order to protect natural re- sources and /or rural zones to provide community separator areas. Discussion: Annexation should only be done when it improves the community. These policies state that quality of life in the community can be enhanced through annexation when it improves the efficiency or level of municipal ser- vices and infrastructure, when it sup- ports local land use goals, when it will simply local government, or when it would allow protection of the natural environment. These policies also indi- cate that areas which already receive or use City services and infrastructure should become a part of the City. These policies establish the general framework for reviewing annexation proposals. Page 14-5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation DRAFT 12 /16/91 III. Boundaries Objective 3.0: Seek boundaries that readily define city and county jurisdiction and correct the existing inconsistencies of the City's borders with future annexation propos- als. Policy 3.1: The City should encourage annexations that encompass unincorpo- rated islands and peninsulas; further- more, the City should not support pro- posed annexations that create islands of unincorporated lands within Renton. Policy 3.2: The proposed annexation boundary should be defined by the fol- lowing characteristics: a. annexation of territory that is adjacent to the existing City limits; in general, the more land adjacent to the City the more fa- vorable the annexation; b. inclusion of unincorporated is- lands and peninsulas; c. use of boundaries that are read- ily identifiable in the field, such as waterways, ridges, park property, roads /freeways, and railroads; d. inclusion /exclusion of an entire neighborhood, rather that divid- ing portions of the neighborhood between City and County juris- dictions; and e. natural corridors should be identified and included as green- belts or community separators between the City and adjacent jurisdictions. Policy 3.3: Logical boundaries for the City of Renton should be made with new annexations. Logical jurisdiction boundaries of a city are defined by two components: 1) physical features, such as a ridge, watershed, or lake, as well as urban elements, such as a road; and, 2) the timing for the provision of public services. Timing for the availability of public facilities and services must be used to evaluate whether boundaries created by an annexation are logical at the time of application. Policy 3.4: Existing land uses, devel- opment, and redevelopment potential should be considered when evaluating a proposed annexation. Policy 3.5: Annexation proposals should include areas that allow for the control over land uses along major en- trance corridors to the City. Policy 3.6: Boundaries of individual annexations will not be reconsidered to exclude reluctant property owners if their exclusion is inconsistent with an- nexation policies that address land use, environmental protection, and the effi- cient delivery of services. Discussion: Existing City boundaries are extremely irregular and confusing. To help create more logical boundaries in the future, the City should approve annexations which improve the configu- ration of existing city boundaries by eliminating islands and peninsulas of the City. Future annexation boundaries should maximize adjacency to the City, allow for the efficient provision of City services, follow man -made or natural Page 14-6 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation boundaries, and include entire neigh- boundary. borhoods. Annexation boundaries should not be adjusted due to private interests. These policies will promote the creation of a more logical city DRAFT 12 /16/91 IV. Environmental Quality and Protection Objective 4.0: Protect the environmental quality of Renton by annexing lands where future development and land use activity could adversely impact natural and urban sys- tems. Policy 4.1: Annexation proposals should include environmentally sensi- tive areas and vacant land where future development could adversely influence the environmental and land use charac- ter of Renton. Policy 4.2: Areas of unincorporated King County adjacent to the City's bor- der that are subject to high growth and development pressures should be an- nexed to the City of Renton. Policy 4.3: Shoreline master program land use designations, including desig- nations for associated wetlands, should be imposed upon territory within an an- nexation proposal during the annexation process. Policy 4.4: Annexations of areas which lie within existing, emerging or prospective aquifer recharge zones that currently or potentially supply domestic water to the City should be pursued. Policy 4.5: When annexing areas, for resource protection, the City should apply zoning which will protect the re- source and preserve the area's rural character. Discussion: The City may need to pursue annexation of certain areas to protect the environmental quality of the City and surrounding areas. Annexa- tion would allow the City to alter land use patterns and development standards in these areas to reduce the environmental impacts of growth. The City could take direct steps to protect environmental resource areas. The City could also take steps to regulate and /or mitigate any existing adverse environ- mental conditions such as erosion or septic tank failure. V. Emergency and Public Services Objective 5.0: Create city boundaries through annexations that facilitate the efficient delivery of emergency and public services. Policy 5.1: Annexations that lead to City, such as police, fire, water, sewer, the efficient provision of services to the and transportation should be supported. Page 14-7 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation Policy 5.2: To the extent feasible, an annexed territory should receive the same level of service generally provided throughout the City. Policy 5.3: The quality of emergency service should be evaluated in terms of the type of equipment, training of per- sonnel, and numbers of responding units, in addition to response time. Other public services (such as sewer, water, library, and transportation) should add balance to the quality of life in the annexation area. Discussion: Municipal service stan- DRAFT 12 /16/91 dards and their application to annexed territory will be evaluated in light of land use, growth management implica- tions, and the need for protecting natu- ral resources. These policies are intended to encourage annexation of areas where Renton is or could be the primary provider of emergency and public ser- vices. The City should approve an- nexations where it can efficiently pro- vide urban services at acceptable levels of service. The provision of emergency and public services should improve the quality of life in annexed areas. VI. Annexation and Intergovernmental Relations Objective 6.0: Promote a regional approach for development review through the use of interlocal agreements to ensure that land development policies in King County are consistent with the comprehensive plan policies or other City of Renton development standards. Policy 6.1: The sphere of influence and urban growth areas boundaries should be implemented through an agreement between King County, adja- cent jurisdictions, and the City of Ren- ton. Policy 6.2: The role of the Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB) for King County in the annexation pro- cess should be recognized, and the City should work cooperatively with BRB staff to ensure that their review of an- nexations is completed in a timely man- ner. Policy 6.3: Long -range planning and the development of capital improvement programs for transportation, storm wa- ter, water, and sewer services should be coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions, special districts, and King County. Policy 6.4: The City's size and juris- dictional boundaries should encompass all areas where future land use and ex- isting development could endanger nat- ural resources, and where land use de- cision- maldng authority is best served by the City of Renton. Policy 6.5: Interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions should be pursued to develop solutions to regional concerns including, but not limited to water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation, park and open space, development re- view, and public safety. Page 14-8 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation Policy 6.6: To best serve the economic viability and environmental quality of Renton, the City should actively take part in land use decisions of all territory within the sphere of influence. Discussion: The agreement will spec each agency's area of influence and detail the extent to which each agency may influence the other's actions in those areas. Subjects which should be addressed in such an agreement include special benefit districts, protection of sensitive areas, zoning and land use densities, extension of sewer and water services, annexations, b!;ilding permits for projects over a specified size, trans- portation system planning and imple- DRAFT 12 /16/91 mentation, and environmental review. The sphere of influence is defined on the preceding map (See Map 14 -1). The City should work with King County, special districts and other jurisdictions to coordinate land use and infrastructure planning. This will facilitate future annexations and reduce problems caused by discrepancies be- tween County and City land use plans and development standards. Consis- tency between City and County plans will help reach economic and environ- mental goals and comply with Growth Management legislation. VII. Annexation, Utilities, and Infrastructure Objective 7.0: Recognize in the annexation process the importance that availability of utilities plays in the development of land and implications of annexing substandard in- frastructure. Policy 7.1: Upgrading of utilities and public infrastructure within the devel- oped portions of newly - annexed areas should not be required unless there is a threat to public health and safety. Policy 7.2: The extension of water and sewer services beyond the City's boundary should be prohibited EX- CEPT that an extension may be made to a single developed parcel if it is deter- mined by the City and /or the King County Department of Public Health that a public health emergency exists or is imminent. Policy 7.3: All property owners of development in unincorporated King County that are granted City utilities should be required to sign a covenant to annex and agree to develop in accor- dance with the City's development standards. Policy 7.4: All lands that have recorded covenants to annex or that re- ceive city water and sewer service should be annexed. Discussion: Should upgrading of facilities to City standards be required to avoid public health and safety con- cerns, a local improvement district may be formed to offset public expenses. For a public health emergency situation, either annexation, or a covenant to annex, should be required Page 14 -9 Comprehensive Plan land Use Element Annexation before City services are extended. The provision of urban services and infrastructure can serve as a catalyst to growth. To prevent premature development and maintain the efficiency of city services, city services and infrastructure should only be upgraded DRAFT 12 /16/91 when there is a threat to the public's health and safety. City services should only be extended outside of the city in the case of a public health emergency. Any unincorporated areas which receive City services should become a part of the City. VIII. City Administration of Annexations Objective 8.0: Provide full and complete evaluation of annexation proposals by all departments upon the submission of the annexation proposal. Policy 8.1: Appropriate zoning dis- tricts should be designated for property in an annexation proposal. Zoning in the annexation territory should be guided by the comprehensive plan land use designations. Where lands are de- veloped, non - conforming zoning desig- nations should be avoided except where those uses are determined to be sub- stantially inconsistent with the compre- hensive plan land use map and policies. Policy 8.2: Development proposals associated with annexation proposals should require separate review from the annexations. Policy 8.3: Larger annexations should be encouraged in order to minimize duplication of effort. However, an- nexation proposals less than ten acres in size are permissible provided they in- clude peninsulas or islands of unincor- porated King County and serve to create a more logical city boundary. Policy 8.4: Annexations proposed by the petition method should be expanded to include areas surrounded by the city on three sides and those properties with recorded covenants to annex, provided the expansion does not render the pro- posal incapable of meeting state guide- lines. Policy 8.5: The City should ensure that property owners and residents in and around the affected area(s) are fully in- formed of the obligations and require- ments that may be imposed upon them as a result of annexation. The City should respond to community initiatives and actively assist owners and residents with initiating and completing the an- nexation process. Policy 8.6: The administrative staff of the City should work with potential an- nexation proponents to develop accept- able annexation boundaries. Policy 8.7: The administration staff should conduct a Fiscal Impact assess- ment of the costs to provide service and of the tax revenues, including bonding capacity, which would be generated in the area. The City recognizes that fis- cal impacts are only one of many crite- ria to be evaluated, and must be bal- anced with other policy goals such as protection of sensitive areas, public service provision, governmental struc- Page 14-10 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation ture, infrastructure, and aquifer protec- tion. Discussion: Policy 8.1 above should not take effect until the revised compre- hensive plan land use map and devel- opment policies have been adopted by the City of Renton. Until the compre- hensive plan update is complete, the City should evaluate zoning alternatives for the annexation territory in light of existing and anticipated land uses, ad- jacent land uses, the existing compre- hensive plan, King County zoning, and any environmental constraints specific to the area under consideration. Annexation proponents who want to process a development proposal with the City concurrently with an annexation proposal may initiate the development review process after the City Council has held a public meeting on the notice of intent to annex and authorized the circulation of the an- nexation petition. The City's hearing examiner may not hold a public hearing on a development proposal associated with an annexation until after the City Council has held a public hearing and DRAFT 12/16/91 approved the annexation. Acceptance by staff of a notice of intent to annex does not guarantee the City's support of the proposal. Authorization by the City Council to circulate the annexation petition does not commit the City to approve the annexation. These policies establish a framework for evaluating, approving and conducting proposed annexations. Each annexation proposal should be fully reviewed by the City according to these policies. Each review should include a fiscal impact analysis to supplement the evaluation. Annexations which meet the criteria established by these policies should be approved. Once the annexation is approved, the City should coordinate and facilitate the transition between County and City government for annexed residents. This transition process will include establishment of land use and zoning designations, review of pending development proposals, and provide information about City policies and regulations . STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies The proposed policies set forth a strategy for actively evaluating annexations. Before annexation occurs, the City should carefully review annexation proposals to evaluate their concurrence with several objectives. These objectives include: 1. Urban Areas: The City will define areas in which future urban development and annexation is appropriate. The City will seek annexation of all lands within these areas when they meet the criteria for annexation. Page 14 -11 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Annexation rw" k103 rY, kC' n?i! �� £�'d:!n:«•,ynt+ �..._..._. DRAFT 12/16/91 2. Quality of Life: The City will support annexations which enhance the quality of life of residents. 3. Boundaries: The City will seek to create logical and identifiable boundaries that use geographic or topographical features. 4. Environmental Quality: The City will support annexations to protect and preserve environmental quality. S. Provision of Services: The City will support annexations which promote the effi- cient delivery of urban services. The City shall coordinate provision of urban services to newly annexed areas and shall annex all areas with City services. 6. Coordination with King County: The City will coordinate determinations of land uses, densities, urban growth areas, urban service requirements. This will help reduce problems created by annexation of county lands which are inconsistent with City plans and policies. Implementation These strategies will be implemented through: 1. Designation of Urban Growth and Sphere of Influence Boundaries. 2. Consideration of future annexation proposals. Page 14-12 DRAFT 12 /16/91 GLOSSARY activity node: an area of higher density mixed land uses served by city-wide or regional transportation systems. aquifer: a water bearing layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel. boulevards: a designation applied to arterial streets. Typically a broad thoroughfare that is often separated by a landscaped median or center divider which has potential to function as linear open space. Boulevard designation implies a higher priority for landscape, sidewalk or trail improvements. convenience commercial: small commercial areas providing limited retail goods and services for nearby customers. commercial: a type of land use including office activities and the retail sale of goods and services. community: a portion of the city consisting of residential and commercial land uses and sharing a common identity (for example, the Highlands). conununity commercial: moderate to large sized commercial areas typically serving more than one residential neighborhood, usually a large portion of the city, with retail goods and services. community separators: corridors of natural areas on very low density rural development between higher density urban areas. Examples include lands useful for open space, wildlife habitat, recreation trails and connection of critical areas, agricultural uses, or lands which have a rural character. critical areas: wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded and geologically hazardous areas as designated by the Growth Management Act. Glossary (cont.) DRAFT 12 /16/91 density: a measurement of population, housing units, or building area related to land area, and expressed as a ratio; i.e. one dwelling unit per acre, or 1,000 people per square mile. gross density: a ratio of the total number of housing units to the total number of acres including residential and non - residential lands.. net density: the total number of acres devoted solely to residential (i.e. excluding roads, parks, undevelopable areas, etc.). duplex: a residential building containing two dwelling units located on a single lot. extractive uses: industrial activities involving the mining of natural resources. e.g.: sand, gravel, coal, oil and gas. Fiscal Impact Assessment: a study to determine the financial effects of a proposed development or policy on the cost of services provided by the City such as utilities, traffic, road maintenance, transportation improvements, community facilities such as parks, emergency services, land development and environmental protection services. geologically hazardous: areas which may be prone to one or more of the following conditions -- erosion, flooding, landslides, coal mine hazards, or seismic activity. Growth Management Act of 1990: a law passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1990 and amended in 1991 that mandates comprehensive planning in designated counties and cities statewide.(RCW 36.70A) heavy industrial: a type of land use including manufacturing processes using raw materials, extractive land uses, and any industrial uses which typically are incompatible with adjacent uses due to noise, odor, toxic chemicals, or other activities which pose a hazard to public health and safety. heritage trees: distinctive individual trees determined to be of historic, cultural or visual significance within a community. G -2 Glossary (cont.) DRAFT 12 /16/91 industrial: a type of land use characterized by production, manufacturing, distribution or fabrication activities. industrial area: a contiguous group of independent industrial sites with little or no common use of facilities, or a combination of industrial sites and industrial centers. An industrial area is typically larger than an individual site or an individual industrial center. industrial center: a group of contiguous industrial sites which have been designed and /or developed in a unified fashion with attention to common use of circulation, utilities, parking, recreation, and commercial facilities. industrial site: a single parcel of land used or designated for industrial activities. infrastructure: the underlying foundation, or basic framework of a city. This term is often used to refer to utilities, roads, bridges, parks, and other public facilities. intensive office: mid to high -rise office development including structured parking typically located in areas with regional transportation access. intermittent stream courses: streams which do not flow all year, and respond to seasonal fluctuation in the rainfall cycle. light industrial: a type of land use including small scale or less intensive production, manufacturing, distribution or fabricating activities. Some office activities may also be included. linear parks: parks which are long and narrow, and follow a natural or man-made corridor such as a road or stream course. manufacturing: types of land uses in which materials or substances are transformed into new products including construction and assembling of component parts, and the blending of materials such as lubricating oils, plastics, resins or liquors. master plan: a specific land use plan focused on a particular site which is intended to guide growth and development on the site over a number of years. G -3 Glossary (cont.) DRAFT 12 /16/91 mixed use: a building, or structure with two or more different uses such as residential, office, manufacturing, retail, public, or entertainment. multifamily: a residential building, or group of buildings which contain two or more dwelling units in each building. neighborhood: a small, predominantly residential area of the city in which the residents share a common identity focuses around an elementary school, park, or similar feature. neo-traditional neighborhood development: a form of town development based on a modified grid systeni with small blocks around a central square or plaza. Development includes residential and small scale commercial uses. prime agricultural land: lands with extremely fertile soil classifications as established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. public facilities: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreational facilities, schools and public buildings. open space: any area of land, or water which provides physical or visual relief from the developed environment. Open space may be essentially unimproved and set aside, designated or reserved for public use or enjoyment, or for the private use and enjoyment of adjacent property owners. Open space may also consist of developed urban plazas, parks or street rights -of -way which provide visual relief within developed areas. regional commercial: a mix of land uses offering a broad array of retail goods and services, offices, and cultural activities which serve an entire city or beyond. religious centers: a broadly defined subcategory of public facilities including churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, shrines, holy sites, and related uses and facilities. Glossary (cont.) DRAFT 12/16/91 resource areas: agricultural, mineral and timber lands designated by the Growth Management Act. rural area: a sparsely developed area where the land is undeveloped or primarily used for agricultural, forestry or open space purposes. Semi - agricultural uses: a type of land use that integrates small scale farming and other limited rural activities with suburban residential uses. special benefit districts: subareas of a community designated by city ordinance to assess payments for construction or installation of public facilities which primarily benefit the property owners within the district. sphere of influence: a designated area beyond the existing City boundaries in which the City of Renton has an inherent interest in future land use decisions or actions. strip commercial: an area occupied by businesses that are engaged in commercial activity and are composed, or arranged in a line, usually along an arterial street. structured parking: parking areas within a building or structure with one or more stories. surface parking: open lots or grounds with at -grade parking facilities. urban growth areas: areas designated by a county for development over the next twenty years as required by the Growth Management Act. Growth should not occur outside these areas. wetlands: areas characterized by the presence of surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration to support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. wildlife habitat: an area characterized by wildlife that forage, nest, spawn, or migrate through in search of food, or shelter. G -5 RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT CONCEPTUAL MAP Established Urban Residential and New Neighborhood Residential 10 U.U./A. Neighborhood Commercial Center with Residential Community Commercial Center with Residential CBD Mixed Use Center (Commercial and High Density Multifamily Residential) This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed to survey accuracy, intended for city purooses only and based on the best information available as of the date shown. This material is owned and copyrighted by The City of Renton 2- 2A Map 2-1 RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT CONCEPTUAL MAP High Density Center with Infill Established Single Family Residential Established Urban Residential and New Neighborhood Residential 10 D.U./A. Neighborhood Commercial Center with Residential Community Commercial Center with Residential CBD Mixed Use Center (Commercial and High Density Multifamily Residential) CBD High Intensity Office Office and Industry This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed to survey accuracy, intended for city purposes only and based on the best information available as of the date shown. This material is owned and copyrighted by The City of Renton 2-2A Map 2-1 CITY OF RENTON AGRICULTURE MAP LAKE KATHLEEN DAR MR PMX Agriculture Lands Lakes Parks Streams Rivers Highways Main Roads III Hospital. Fire Station Library School Airport Municipal Boundaries Sphere of Influence P/B/PW Technical Services Date: December 10, 1991 Name: Lorraine Gonzales 27 Nov 91/rtm Map 6-1 l92-0104 seatac microwave landing environmental assessment TO: FROM: Rick Beele DATE: 23 July 1992 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Mayor Rants John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment - Sea -Tac Microwave Landing System (MLS) The City of Tukwila responded to the draft environmental assessment for the above project. The final has been issued with a response to the City's comments. The primary response was confusing because the FAA referred to the City's "downtown" area instead of the Allentown and Cascade View areas. Moira called the contact person on 17 July to discuss the error. Sarah Dalton, referred her to Table 7, which lists noise readings at points along proposed flight paths. The closest test point (Pacific Hwy and S. 122nd), as illustrated on Figure 19, indicates there will be a 0.1 decibel difference in noise from existing conditions. 'Ms. Dalton stated that there must be a 1.5 decibel difference before a person can hear a noise. The issuance of the "final assessment" completes the environmental review phase and allows the FAA to install and operate one, (due to funding problems) navigational landing system versus two as originally proposed. The Regional Commission on Airport Affairs commented on the proposal. If the City were to take any further action the RCAA would be the likely avenue as they have hired the noise experts and we are paying them to investigate environmental impacts from Sea - Tac. Rick Aramburu says that they will not be taking any further action on this issue. My assessment is that the MLS allows the airport to expand capacity without substantial impacts, which is a strategy that the RCAA wants to pursue. cc: John McFarland Steve Lawrence 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 41313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE MLS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AT SEATTLE- TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 490 -DID Lead Agency: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION JUNE 1992 JUi1.2't 1992 (-i11 01. P LAN N.1NC s r >l'. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS i LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 SECTION 2 - NEED AND PURPOSE 2.1 SECTION 3 - ALTERNATIVES 3.1 SECTION 4 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 SECTION 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 5.1 Noise 5.1 Impact from Electronic Emissions 5.24 Impacts on Utilities 5.25 Impacts on Air Quality 5.2 5 Impacts on Water Quality and Wetlands 5.25 Impacts on Biotic Communities 5.25 Impacts on Historic and Cultural Resources 5.26 Impacts on Endangered and.... 5.26 Threatened Species Impacts from Construction 5.26 SECTION 6 - LIST OF PREPARERS, LIST OF PARTIES TO WHOM SENT... 6.1 SECTION 7 - SECTION 8 - APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H DRAFT EA COMMENT LETTERS DRAFT EA COMMENT LETTER RESPONSES - COMPONENTS OF A MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM - CALCULATION OF DELAY SAVINGS - LIST OF APPROACH CATEGORY A & B AIRCRAFT - DEFINITIONS OF WEATHER C7MDITIONS - MEASURES OF SOUND - NORTH FLOW TRACKS AND FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION - LETTER FROM STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER - ESTIMATES OF PERCENTAGE OF MLS- EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE 1 MLS AZIMUTH COVERAGE 2 LOCATION OF MLS, SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 3 PAGE 2.3 2.4 PROPOSED FLIGHT TRACK FOR MLS -A 2.5 APPROACH 4 DRAFT APPROACH PLATE (MLS -16A) PLAN VIEW 5 DRAFT APPROACH PLATE (MLS -16A) PROFILE VIEW 6 OPTION 1 7 OPTION 2 8 OPTION 3 9 OPTIONS 4A AND 4B 10 OPTION 5 11 OPTION 6 12 LOCATION OF POINTS ON THE PROPOSED FLIGHT TRACK FOR ALTITUDE ANALYSES 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 4.3 13 LAND USES AND JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES NORTH 4.4 OF SEA -TAC AIRPORT 14 SOUTH FLOW FLIGHT TRACKS WITH MLS 5.18 15 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS FOR 1993 EXISTING 5.19 CONDITION 16 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS FOR 1993 WITH PREFERRED 5.20 ALTERNATIVE 17 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS FOR 1998 EXISTING 5.21 CONDITION 18 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS FOR 1998 WITH PREFERRED 5.22 ALTERNATIVE 19 LOCATION OF GRID POINTS FOR NOISE ANALYSIS 5.23 ii • TABLE 1 2 3 7 9 10 11 LIST OF TABLES TITLE PROJECTED ALTITUDES OF AIRCRAFT ON THE PROPOSED FLIGHT TRACKS TABLE OF FLEET MIX TABLE OF OPERATIONS RUNWAY USE - 1990 FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION WITH AND WITHOUT MLS SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS - GRID POINT DAY -NIGHT NOISE LEVEL (1993) NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS - GRID POINT DAY -NIGHT NOISE LEVEL (1998) NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS - GRID POINT TIME -ABOVE (1993) NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS - GRID POINT TIME -ABOVE (1998) RF /MICROWAVE PEL'S iii PAGE 4.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.10 5.12 5.14 5.16 5.24 r3 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration June 19, 1992 Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Dear Recipient: As an interested party, we invite you to review and comment on this Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for a proposed installation of a Microwave Landing System (MLS) at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport (SEA). The draft environmental assessment evaluated the installation of two MLS systems. Further investigation has determined that it is not economical to install two MLS systems at SEA, therefore the proposed action has been revised to include only one MLS.. Due to the change in the proposed action, FAA will receive comments on the Final Environmental Assessment. These comments will be addressed in the Record of Decision. Comments must be received by July 24, 1992 in order to be considered in the Record of Decision. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 227 -2661. Sincerely, Sarah P. Dalton Planner, Puget Sound Enclosure 4 INTRODUCTION The Port of Seattle requested that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) consider the installation of a Microwave Landing System (MLS) at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA), Seattle, Washington. The FAA considered this request in the context of the MLS Demonstration Program, which is designed to determine the economic and operational benefits of MLS. The MLS Demonstration Program, mandated by the U.S. Congress, provided for nine projects. One of these nine projects requires analyses of airports that have the potential to improve the efficiency of airport operations, i.e. reduce delays, through the use of MLS technology. FAA formed a work group in August 1990, to review the technical feasibility of installing a MLS and developing instrument procedures which would reduce air traffic congestion and delays during poor weather conditions at SEA. The work group included representatives from six divisions of the FAA, the airlines, and the Port of Seattle. In addition to the objectives established by the MLS Demonstration Program, the work group formulated <<dditional objectives that were unique to SEA. These objectives include3 . not impacting the operations at King County International Airport (BFI), meeting all safety criteria, and minimizing noise impacts on the community. The work group recommended that the FAA install two MLS systems and develop two independent Instrument Approach Procedures to runway 16L at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. One procedure proposed was a straight -in precision approach for landing to the south on the east runway, runway 16L. This procedure was designated as MLS -16L. A precision approach is an instrument approach procedure with vertical and horizontal guidance. The horizontal guidance essentially assists the pilot in alignment of the aircraft with the runway centerline. The vertical guidance provides glide path information for guidance of aircraft descent to the touchdown point on the runway. The second procedure proposed provides simultaneous ILS /MLS approaches to runway 16R and 16L. The ILS approach to runway 16R is an existing instrument pLz,cedure. The MLS procedure will be an offset final approach with a fly visual maneuver segment to runway 16L (MLS -A) . A fly visual maneuver is flown by the pilot and does not require use of instrumentation for guidance to the runway. See Figure 3 for location of proposed flight track. Since issuance the draft environmental assessment in January 1992, the work group's recommendation has been reconsidered. 1.1 Further investigation has determined that it is not economical to install two MLS systems at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. Due to the minimal benefits derived from the straight -in precision approach procedure described above and nonavailability of equipment, the FAA is no longer proposing to install the MLS in the middle of the airport and develop the straight -in approach procedure to runway 16L. Therefore the proposed action is to install a MLS at Site A (Shown on Figure 2) and develop the MLS -A described above. The Final Environmental Assessment has been revised to reflect this change. The work group evaluated the proposed action from a technical perspective. This document evaluates environmental impacts associated with the proposed procedure and equipment installation. 1.2 NEED AND PURPOSE The Federal Aviation Administration is proposing to install a Microwave Landing System at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA), and develop an instrument approach procedure. The purpose of this action is to increase the efficiency of airport operations. The estimated annual delay savings of taking this action is $1.56 million in 1993 and $2.55 million in 1998. Details on the increase in efficiency of airport operations are described in APPENDIX B. A. Background: The FAA has initiated a major program to replace the current instrument landing systems (ILS) with Microwave Landing Systems (MLS). MLS has been selected as the new international standard all- weather precision approach and landing guidance system. MLS is being integrated into the National Airspace System (NAS). The advantages of MLS over ILS are: * Improved frequency channel capacity. * Less restrictive siting criteria for placement of equipment on the ground. * Ability to support advanced procedures. Existing advanced procedure application is the "boresite" approach within an 80 degree arc which is possible because of the wide guidance coverage capability of MLS. Figure 1 illustrates MLS azimuth coverage. A boresite approach is a procedure that follows a track over the ground which goes in a straight line directly to the azimuth station (See Appendix A for description of azimuth station). Future technology will provide capability for curved approaches and multiple glide paths. The MLS Demonstration Program, under which this proposed action is being considered, is designed to determine the economic and operational benefits of the MLS. This program was established by FAA in response to a Congressional Appropriation Committee request. This request followed a recommendation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) that FAA reassess its justification and requirement for a new precision landing system. Project 4 of the MLS Demonstration Program analyzes airport locations at which the application of MLS technology has significant potential to reduce air traffic congestion and 2.1 delays during poor weather conditions. Airports selected to receive MLS to support the demonstration are those that have substantial traffic restrictions. during Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) and would appear to benefit from MLS. SEA has been selected to receive MLS equipment because the Port of Seattle's 1990 Noise Mediated Agreement included a request to FAA to designate SEA in the demonstration program, because there is a demonstrated capacity benefit, and because SEA is served by an airline that operates MLS equipped aircraft. B. Proposed Actions: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to install a Microwave Landing System (MLS) and develop an. Instrument Approach Procedure to Runway 16L at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA), Seattle, Washington. a. Installation of MLS equipment: Site A (MLS -A) Azimuth, elevation station and precision distance measuring. equipment (DME /P) will be collocated north of the airport parking lot north of South 160th Street, west of Pacific Highway South, approximately 4500 feet east of and approximately 700 south of runway 16R threshold. Location is shown on Figure 2. Details on the components of the Microwave Landing System are in Appendix A. b. Develop Instrument Approach Procedure: The procedure will create simultaneous ILS /MLS approaches to runway 16R and 16L. The ILS approach to runway 16R is an existing instrument procedure. The MLS procedure will be a parallel final approach with a fly visual maneuver segment to runway 16L (MLS -A). The flight track for this procedure is shown on Figure 3. Full description of this procedure is in the ALTERNATIVES SECTION. 2.2 AZIMUTH STATION "BORESITE" APPROACHES WITH FLIGHT TRACKS DIRECTLY TO THE AZIMUTH STATION ARE POSSIBLE WITHIN +/ -40 DEGREES OF EXTENDED CENTERLINE. MLS AZIMUTH COVERAGE FIGURE 1 2.3 LOCATION OF MLS, SEATTLE.- TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FIGURE 2 2.4 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION A. Alternative Evaluation Process The MLS Demonstration Program, under which this proposed action is being considered, is designed to determine the economic and operational benefits of the MLS. The program is evaluating potential locations where the application of MLS technology reduces air traffic congestion and delays in poor weather conditions. FAA formed a work group in August 1990, to review the technical feasibility of installing a MLS and developing instrument procedures which reduced air traffic congestion and delays during poor weather conditions at SEA. The work group included representatives from six divisions of the FAA, the airlines, and the Port of Seattle. In addition to the objectives established by the MLS Demonstration Program, the work group formulated additional objectives that were unique to Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA). These objectives included not impacting the operations at King County International Airport (BFI), meeting all safety criteria, and minimizing noise impacts on the community. The work group examined a wide -range of options for MLS approaches to SEA. The approach procedures studied included various combinations of flight tracks (paths over the ground) and glide paths (the angle or rate of descent to landing). The specific location of the MLS equipment installation is dictated by the approach procedure, although Option 6 investigated an alternate location of the equipment. The studied options, including the procedures and location of the equipment, are summarized below. The proposed action is Option 7. Option 7 (MLS -A) provides significant efficiency improvements, as described below. B. Proposed Actions _(Preferred Alternative): The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to install a Microwave Landing System (MLS) and develop an Instrument Approach Procedure to runway 16L at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA), Seattle, Washington. 1. Installation of MLS equipme -t: Site A (MLS -A) Azimuth and elevation stations will be collocated north of the airport parking lot north of South 160th Street, west of Pacific Highway South approximately 4500 feet east of and approximately 700 south of runway 16R threshold. Location is shown on Figure 2. This MLS will support the MLS -A approach 3.3. described below. 2. Development of Instrument Approach Procedure MLS -A approach: This procedure will create simultaneous ILS /MLS approaches to runways 16R and 16L respectively with a fly visual maneuver to runway 16L. The ILS approach to runway 16R is an existing instrument procedure. The approach path for the MLS procedure will be approximately 4500 feet east of and parallel to the approach path to runway 16R. A 4.2 degree glide path angle will be established. The procedural minimums will be a 1100 foot ceiling and 3 statute miles visibility. The operational minimums will be an approximate 3000 foot ceiling and 3 statute miles visibility. At the Missed Approach Point (MAP), approximately 2.5 nautical miles from the azimuth antenna, the pilot must have established visual contact with the runway environment and the aircraft on final approach to runway 16R. The pilot will fly the aircraft to runway 16L in visual flight conditions from the MAP to the airport. Figures 4 and 5 are draft approach plates for this procedure. The proposed MLS procedure would be useable when the ceiling in south flow is above 3000 feet above ground level (AGL) and the visibility is greater than 3 statute miles. South flow means that the aircraft are taking off and landing to the south. The 4.2 degree glide path limits the use of the procedure to Approach Category A and B aircraft capable of flying a steep glide path. These include, but are not limited to, De Havilland Dash 7's, 8's and Dorniers. See Appendix C for listing of aircraft in this category. Quantifiable benefits of this procedure accrue in south flow when, without the MLS -A approach, the arrival stream would be limited to a single flow. At ceilings between 3000 and 5000 feet AGL and visibilities above 3 statute miles, MLS equipped aircraft capable of flying the 4.2 degree glide path could conduct a parallel instrument approach. These weather conditions occur approximately 15% of the year. The delay savings in 1993 and 1998 is estimated to be $1.56 million and $2.55 million respectively. See Appendix B for details on the delay savings calculations. Installation of a MLS at Site A and the development of the MLS - -A procedure result in the benefits described above. The less restrictive siting criteria of MLS equipment over ILS equipment increases the feasibility of installing this navigational aid at Site A to support the operations that result in these benefits. 3.2 C. Description of Options Studied Option 1 - This procedure would be a boresite approach 9 degrees west of 16L centerline. A steep approach (4 to 6 degree glide path) would be required to separate traffic vectored through Elliott Bay from traffic on 16R ILS approach. The MLS equipment would be sited at the south end of 16L/34R. This alternative was rejected on technical grounds i.e. it required two aircraft to perform a side step maneuver to land the MLS traffic on 16R and the ILS traffic on 16L. There are no existing procedures for this complex dual side -step maneuver. Flight track is shown on Figure 6. Option 2 - This procedure would be a boresite approach 7 degrees east of 16L centerline. This option included two variations of the approach angle: a steep approach angle (6 degree glide path) and a standard approach angle (3 degree glide path). The MLS equipment would be sited at the south end of runway 16L/34R. The standard approach angle was rejected on technical grounds due to the potential interference with BFI traffic. The steep glide path would minimize interaction with E 'I traffic. Environmental evaluation of this option showed that the increase in noise exposure due to this option would not exceed FAA's threshold of significance. See ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES SECTION. However, this alternative was rejected because it deviates significantly from flight tracks flown today. The increases in efficiency and delay benefits would the same as Option 7. Flight track is shown on Figure 7. Option 3 - This procedure would be a boresite approach 13 degrees east of 16L centerline. A steep glide path (4.2 degree glide path) to minimize interaction with BFI traffic. The MLS equipment would be sited on the west side of runway 16R. Environmental evaluation of this option showed that the increase in noise exposure due to this option would not exceed FAA's threshold of significance. See ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES SECTION. However, this alternative was rejected because it deviates significantly from flight tracks flown today. The increases in efficiency and delay benefits would the same as Option 7. Flight track is shown on Figure 8. Option 4.a. - This procedure would be a straight -in approach to runway 16L with a 6 degree glide path. The steep approach would be required to provide the vertical separation from the traffic on the ILS approach to runway 16R. The MLS equipment would be sited at the south end of runway 16L/34R. This alternative was rejected on technical grounds due to operational difficulties for both pilots and air traffic controllers in separating "stacked ", descending aircraft. 3.3 Flight track flown would be the same as MLS -16L. See Figure 9. Option 4.b. - This procedure would be a straight -in approach to runway 16L with a standard 3 degree glide path (this approach was referred to as MLS -16L in the Draft EA). In IFR conditions, this approach may not be used simultaneously with the existing 16R ILS approach. This approach would demonstrate the precision capability of MLS, however there would be no quantifiable increase in efficiency with this option. Therefore this option would not satisfy the objectives of the program and was removed from further consideration. The MLS equipment would be sited in mid field. Flight track is shown on Figure 9. Option 5 - This procedure would be parallel to, and offset southwest 4300 feet from, the existing 13R ILS approach to BFI. This procedure would provide required separation between SEA and BFI traffic. The MLS equipment would be sited off of the airport 4300 feet west of and parallel to runway 13R at BFI. This alternative was rejected on technical grounds, i.e. it required two aircraft to perform a side step maneuver required to land the SEA MLS traffic on runway 16R and the SEA ILS traffic on runway 16L. Flight track is shown on Figure 10. Option 6 - This approach would converge with SEA 16R ILS approach, from the east, at a small angle, to a point 4300 feet east of runway 16R. This point would be at the south end of BFI. The aircraft would fly a visual approach from this point to runway 16L. Aircraft flying the glide path would be 2000 feet above ground level at the south end of BFI. A lower glide path angle outlined in Option 7 could be established because the elevation antenna would be located further south. MLS azimuth station would be sited in the vicinity of the Northwest hangar and the elevation antenna in the vicinity of taxiway A -4. This option was rejected on technical grounds because of the difficulty in siting the azimuth antenna. Flight track is shown on Figure 11. Option 7 - This approach would be parallel to SEA 16R ILS, 4500 feet to the east. A 4.2 degree glide path would be established to maintain adequate separation between aircraft on MLS approach and BFI traffic. Traffic would cross the south end of BFI at 2000 feet above ground level (this approach has been referred to as MLS -A elsewhere in this report). Aircraft must be visible to BFI air traffic controllers, so they can provide visual separation between BFI and Seattle traffic. The aircraft fly a visual approach from the south end of BFI to runway 16L. The azimuth and elevation stations would be sited 4500 feet east of and approximately 700 feet south of the runway 16R threshold. 3.4 ...'s:fulir:r,';.•J�P ;i:l,iva':; eSi d i��:.x , .wn.�.,.. ,..���...,• ..... , ,........, ...,.� r •..«.weo w.r•r,..wr,.,..a •• • w..w »w., .... ...... .��.... .....a.,. .. ..... ..- ...- ...,... ... ,, • �,.,yo. ..,.....,.. �.... �. w.. �.....,,....+ v..,....,.. ...+....r.•.nm..•.•e,n ++vnrv�i, Ewa :«rnve..,..r..+�.mw...«.......� L This approach will demonstrate increased efficiency of operations at. SEA, and is the proposed action. Flight track is shown on Figure 3. D. No Action Under this alternative, no MLS approach procedure would be established at SEA. Aviation users would be deprived of the substantial benefits of the MLS installation. E. Summary All of the technically feasible alternatives (Options 2, 3, and 7) were analyzed on environmental grounds (See ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES) . None of these alternatives would significantly impact the environment. FAA selected Option 7 as the proposed action because the flight track overflies the existing north -south corridor commonly subjected to overflights today. Option 7 is most similar to the status quo in terms of flight track location. The proposed action does not increase the number of flights at SEA. There is a noise benefit by usage of the MLS -A procedure because the 4.2 degree glide path keeps aircraft at higher altitudes longer than existing procedures. The steep glide path angle limits the type of aircraft using the procedure to Approach Category A and B. (See paragraph 2b for further explanation.) 3.5 6000 158 5000 158 • a. p 0 0 4000 Cii 158 °(2.1) \1 iQf co z 3000 158 (2.2) - 4' 0 z SEVTH M-BCF 4.5 SIXTH 1.443r,FID FIVTH M-BCF FORTH M.SCF 8.1 DRAFT APPROACH PLATE SEATTLE :TACOMA I NTL PEA) .Proposed'MLS -A (Planview) Waivers needed: Final Approach Coup. Alignment. GIdep.lh Angle more than 3.00? Pentad runways <4300'tot simultaneous spptosrhua NOTE: Acronyms and symbols are defined .in U.S. Terminal Procedures published by Department of Commerce. This figure is similar to approach plates used by pilots for executing an instrument approach procedure. S -AZ 16L B I C 1470-3 1042 (1100-3) Simultaneous approaches i j hortzed with Rwy 16R. Fly MIS Az to 2.5 DME unlace oth.rwl.s authorized by ATC. Execute missed approach It lending clearance or further Instructions not r.alved upon reaching 2.5 DME. MICROWAVE=. M -BCF Gs +au° 3.6 RADAR REQUIRED January 6, 1992 ANM -220 Ralston 3 FIGURE 4 A vM14:LYt Not for Navigational Use MISSED APPROACH Tun left heading 125 Climb to 3000 direct RONDO LOM and hold. 172 2.6 NM .4. DRAFT APPROACH PLATE SEATTLE- TACOMA INTL (SEA) Proposed MLS -A (Profile View) Waivers needed Final Approach Course Alignment Gbapath Mille more than 3.00. Parallel runways < 4300' for slmubneoua approaches. NOTE: Acronyms and symbols are defined in U.S. Terminal Procedures published by Department of Commerce. This figure is similar to approach plates used by pilots for executing an instrument approach procedure. THRTH M-BCF11.-1) FORTH M-BCF e.l FIVTH M-BCF 10. Procedu 500Q Tom NA 0 Glidepath 4.20 `2.5 NM NM —>±-2.2 NM S -AZ 16L A 1 8 1 C f D 1470 - 3 1 042 (11003) Simultaneous approaches authorized Witt Rwy 15R. Fty ML.S Az to 2.5 DME unless otherwise authorized by ATC. Execute missed approach f landing clearance or further instructiorue not received upon reaching 2.5 DME. RADAR REQUIRED 3.7 2.1 NM 2.2 NM January 6, 1992 ANM -220 Revision 3 FIGURE 5 Webster Point ester Island 004707. /ROW fitko Medina Dabney PFir Groan Pt Duwomish and Calams oinr 1n.iIMG BRIGG( A /ki Point Pont Batley Peninsul MLS TRACK Williams Pout SIDE STEP MANEUVER ont SIDE STEP MANEUVER brat "/s 3.8 FIGURE 6 -- ,*_• -- (u H9�� 3a° m99 Ti eiai = �1 a (1 �' 1 ,CS 3e �a - �• itir 1f 1 4.1 a► °.,� � Egg lifi1 t �Inot L Mil iiji 1 ir i 1 ■ di 111 11 I \Ila∎14al11u • r We Poi roster Isla Hunt Point lorry !` - RRr0rF Medlna Fourmile Roc +(crow 'lint` rrr Groat Pt Duwamish Bard Calkms cunt ZING BRIOGI Alki Point i +sm Pool( Reddy Penulau EXISTING ILS -16R TRACK Wilbems Pout MLS TRACK South Pt Brace Pt Kentlydal Coleman P ryn Mawr Ingelara Seahurs Sccama Beach OPTION 2 FIGURE 7 3.9 Wehsler Poenl nsle, Island PUd'!Oi Ouwamrsh ead 1111AIIMG BRIM( EXISTING 3LS -16R TRACK 3.10 11111 III 1111.171)qi / CO lilt Kirkland • tl WeWier Porn: OUP, 4/.Ind '"470/74, Hunt Porni (901 arrow Int /177.4.4.6 MetIlwt: 1 (Johnny Pt 11 Groat Pi Duwamish ead Fallen Porn, fillAIING MUG( AIk Point Batley Peninsul. C6 t• otnt ISTING ILS-16R \NO South PI ---- Brace Pt ii,Ittryt101 Coleman Pt Ingaltca II JL —t Vat Sealtursi 1444 tat salal OPTIONS 4A AND 4B FIGURE 9 tai- a 5a - -a !!!!jjff 1 1 I I ingeyEareg il, "11'; f t, .g,gE. I et /, ' 11EN . . 'i0i 1 1q1�j 1111 iii if 'I• i e p , _ir.JO IJ61 V II llilli11111J1t�111111 �11 fin{ . .�; j!L1I J11Mt , 11 gif ■ luuouu �, Webster Hunt Pant Point none /sl,mJ PUNIUnry !` NNW, Medina: 3.12 • \ wnh ter pow, ,Mr 4/.•, h /of, Hunt Dabney Pt Groat 1 r • Duwamish ead Ce /bn s 'Dior A /k/ Point ill Ilk 0_11 II 111liii 1 T 9 Williams Pwn I Porn ri .: 1 1 Berle y Penrntui vuro rant South Pr ?_ - EXISTING ILS -16R TRACK Ken:ryda( Cote,nan Pr Di Mawr TRACK '..b 3.13 SECTION: 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment of this proposal is the area north of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA). This section describes this area and provides additional material on the relationship between the proposed action and this environment. Figure 12 shows the flight track 'that would result from the proposed approach procedure and the points at which the altitude analysis was conducted. The projected altitudes of the aircraft at these points are listed in Table 1 below. The altitudes are determined by assuming that the aircraft is flying the glide path. The height above ground is the difference between the ground elevation and altitude of the aircraft at that point. Table 1 Projected Altitudes of Aircraft on the Proposed Flight Track Aircraft Aircraft Point Distance from Altitude Heigit. Above Runway threshold (MSL, feet) Ground (feet? (feet) MLS -A Approach 1 11,000 1160 800 2 26,500 2310 2000 3 41,500 3440 3100 4 50,000 4480 4100 5 58,000 4690 4400 The affected area is heavily developed and contains four main land uses - Residential, Commercial /Industrial, Airport Related, and Parks, Open Space, and Recreation. These four land uses have been represented graphically in Figure 13. This map was developed by the Port of Seattle in its ongoing Federal Aviation Regulation Part 15C update. The Residential category includes all types of residential dwellings except transient lodging such as hotels, motels, and lodges, which are included in the Commercial category. The Parks, Open Space, and Recreation category includes all public parks, golf courses, and cemeteries. As can to seen from this figure, the primary land use is residential. Commercial /Industrial areas line the Pacific /99 Highway corridor and surrounding areas of Boeing Field. Other Commercial /Industrial sites are dispersed throughout the area. Likewise, parks, open space, and golf courses are spread throughout the area. Airport related land uses line King County International (BFI) and the Seattle - Tacoma International (SEA) Airports. 4.1 The MLS site (Site A) is located on airport property. This property is zoned general commercial, therefore the proposed use is consistent when the zoning. The affected environment is located in King County. Within King County, the MLS flight path covers parts of the incorporated cities of Tukwila, SeaTac and Seattle: The boundaries of the jurisdictions are shown on Figure 13. 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. NOISE Introduction The noise analysis in this sub - section displays the noise levels geographically as noise contours which would result from the 1993 and 1998 projected operational levels with and without the preferred alternative. The Aviation Planning Department at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA) has developed these contours for the current update of the SEA Noise Exposure Maps under FAR Part 150 and the FAA's Microwave Landing System (MLS) demonstration project. In addition to the preferred alternative, a noise impact analysis was conducted on Options 2 and 3. This sub - section includes a description of the approach and data input used for this noise impact analysis and the noise contours mapped for the no action and preferred alternative. Background The noise analysis contained in this environmental assessment was prepared using the latest computer modeling technology, Version 3.9 of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Integrated Noise Model (INM). The noise model produced numeric and graphic representations of the noise environment around the airport as a result of average annual daily aircraft operations. The end product of this noise analysis is a series of noise contours which display the airport noise exposure. This noise is expressed as the Day -Night Average Sound Level or "DNL." DNL contours depict points of equal noise exposure around an airport and are a useful environmental assessment tool. They present information on noise exposure from multiple sources over extended time periods for broad geographic areas. To assist reviewers in interpreting these complex estimates, a brief introduction to relevant fundamentals of acoustics is included in Appendix E. Noise Analysis Approach and Input Data The noise analysis in this environmental assessment used the latest computer modeling technique (FAA Integrated Noise Model, Version 3.9). 5.1 Noise Modeling Procedure Two basic types of information are needed to run the FAA's Integrated Noise Model: (1) aircraft noise and performance characteristics, and (2) airport operations data. The aircraft noise and performance data used to develop noise contours for FAA Microwave Landing System (MLS) demonstration project were derived largely from the FAA database (for civilian aircraft) and from the forecasts completed for the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee; operational patterns developed in the Seattle - Tacoma International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan (CEP), June 1991; noise information and abatement measures developed as part of the airport's Noise Mediation Agreement; Official Airline Guide (OAG) schedule information; and flight track data collected by the Noise Abatement Office at SEA. Aircraft Noise and Performance Characteristics The noise data define how loud specific aircraft types are at different "slant distances" to the aircraft from an observer on the ground -- distances ranging from 200 to 25,000 feet. These data are available for typical thrust settings used during takeoff, landing, level flight, touch - and -go operations, and so on. Based on previous examination of the accuracy of INM Version 3.9 for operations at SEA, no correction were made for this analysis. Corrections can be made to these data to account for refinements of thrust settings tailored to the specific operations at a given facility. Performance data used by INM define how quickly aircraft lift off on takeoff, how rapidly they climb, their rates of acceleration, speeds at different distances from takeoff, and other characteristics. The data are available for a large variety of aircraft types, and for a number of different takeoff weights. Takeoff weight is a major concern because of its effect on performance. Stage length -- the distance an aircraft is scheduled to fly -- is typically used as a surrogate for weight because takeoff weight is largely dependent on fuel load, a function of stage length. Airport Operations Data While aircraft noise and performance characteristics tend to be somewhat standardized from airport to airport, the airport operations data specifically define the unique operating environment for each airport. 5.2 Airport operations data include: the physical conditions at the airport the mix of aircraft that use the airport operational activity runway use aircraft flight tracks flight track utilization rates by type of aircraft Physical Conditions at the Airport The INM requires three inputs in this area: average annual temperature, airport elevation, and runway descriptions. The average annual temperature for the airport is 52 degrees Fahrenheit, and the airport elevation is 430 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The runway system consists of two closely spaced parallel runways with headings of 138 degrees and 338 degrees, designated runways 16L/34R and runway 16R/34L. The runway separation is 800 feet centerline to centerline. Runway 16R/34L is 9425 feet long. Runway 16L/34R is 11,900 feet long. Aircraft Mix The mix of aircraft in use at the airport was input to the noise model for 1993 (initial year of operation of the MLS procedures) and 1998 (operations plus 5 years). The FAA's Integrated Noise Model (version 3.9) provides a list of 81 specific aircraft and aircraft types from which to select in defining the aircraft mix at the airport. In the case of the large commercial passenger jet aircraft, the noise model database includes 52 specific aircraft which represent the vast majority of aircraft currently in use at U.S. airports. In the case of the commuter aircraft, general aviation jet aircraft, and general aviation piston- engine aircraft (both single- engine and twin - engine), the FAA noise model is limited to a smaller number of aircraft models and types. In some instances it was therefore neccasary to select a composite aircraft type or a different aircraft from the database to model the noise characteristics of the aircraft in use at SEA. The 1993/98 fleet mix is derived from current OAG schedules and data collected for the noise budget element of the Noise Mediation project. Aircraft types have been converted from OAG groupings to those defined in INM Database 9 using airline records of engine type or substitution of other types of 5.3 similar capacity and horsepower. The mix is consistent with the airport's mediated noise budget. Details of the aircraft types for the military and general aviation operations at the airport are not readily available. The former are generally cargo aircraft, which are not well represented in the INM database. A combination of 747, DC -10, corporate twin jet, and C -130 aircraft are therefore used. General aviation is represented by a combination of single and twin engine propeller aircraft and several type of corporate twin jets. The fleet mix has been adjusted to reflect: 1) the mediated reduction in Stage 2 aircraft operations; 2) increased average seating capacity per aircraft (both air carriers & commuters); and 3) projected changes in the proportions of different operational groups (air carrier, commuter, general aviation, & military). Based on expected replacement of Stage 2 aircraft, the overall fleet mix is projected to be 67% Stage 3 in 1993 and 87% in 1998. Table 2 below lists aircraft types and percentage of total annual operations of each type projected for 1993 and 1998. Aircraft Type Table 2 Table of Fleet Mix % of Total Annual Operations 1993 1998 A300* 1.0 1.4 A310* 0.3 0.8 A320* 1.2 2.4 B727 14.4 7.0 B737 -200 3.1 1.3 B737 -300* 0.1 14.3 B747* 3.0 4.1 B757* 4.9 7.8 B767* 1.2 1.7 DC8* 1.1 0.6 DC9 0.6 0.4 DC10* 2.3 2.1 MD11* 0.5 1.3 MD80 /90* 11.3 14.7 BAE146* 0.1 0.3 F28 1.0 0.5 Cessna 2.0 1.8 Piper 2.3 2.2 DHC6 0.8 0.8 DHC8 11.2 10.0 DO328 3.2 10.7 5.4 % of Total Annual Operations Aircraft Type 1993 1998 EMB120 1.6 1.3 J31 9.5 8.2 SWMetro 8.9 Other 3.7 4.0 Note: Aircraft types flagged " *" conform to Stage 3 noise limits. Some B727 -200 aircraft may be retrofit to meet Stage 3 limits by 1998. Operational Activity_ Operations forecasts for 1993 (initial year of operation of the MLS procedures) and 1998 (operation plus 5 years) have been interpolated from the most recent forecasts for the airport, developed for the current evaluation of long -term alternatives for regional aviation facilities. These data give 382,600 operations for 1993 and 407,000 operations for 1998. Within total operations, the proportion of commuter aircraft to air carriers reflects a projected decline in the commuter percentage. General aviation is expected to show some increase while military flights will remain essentially a constant number. Table 3 below lists the aircraft by category, the type of aircraft in each category, and the percentage of daily totals operations in 1993 and 1998 for each category. It is important to note that the proposed project does not affect the projected operational levels. This project will not increase or decrease the air traffic at SEA. Table 3 Table of Operations Operations Category Aircraft Type Air Carriers % of Daily Operations 1993 1998 A300, A310, A320, B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, nC8, DC9, MD80, L1011, etc. Air Taxi /Commuters BAE146, CVR580, DHC6, DHC7, DHCB, EMB120, SWMIII, J31, F28, etc. 5.5 56.2 60.5 40.2 35.4 % of Daily Operations Operations Category Aircraft Type 1993 1998 General Aviation Various light aircraft 3.6 4.1 including small corporate twin jets, single and twin engine propeller aircraft and helicopters Military Cargo transport 0.1 0.1 aircraft both jet and propeller Runway Use For SEA, the following runway use data was used for both the . existing runway and the development alternative for the years indicated. Runway 16 is the north end and runway 34 is the south end of the existing runway. Table 4 Runway Use -1990 Percentage of Runway Total Operations 16 69 %* (South flow) 34 31 %* (North flow) * These runway use ratios are based on prevailing winds. Aircraft Flight Tracks Aircraft flight tracks are the ground projections of the paths followed by aircraft conducting flight operations, including departures, and approaches. Flight track input has been derived from actual tracks plotted from FAA Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) radar data. In some cases multiple tracks are used to represent the geographic spread of tracks. This spread results both from operational variation of aircraft, weather, etc. and from control vectoring to provide safe aircraft separation and flow control. Figure 14 shows the south flow flight tracks with and without the MLS. Addition of the MLS does not alter any existing flight tracks. North flow flight tracks are in Appendix F. 5.6 FAA Air Traffic Control staff were consulted to confirm the allocation of flight origin /destination among the four control points of the 4 -Post procedures. For general aviation and military flights, destinations were assigned to divide them equally among each of the four control points and were assigned a stage length of 500 or 1000 miles. Flight Track Utilization Rates The final operational data used for noise modeling is the distribution of operations by aircraft type to the various flight tracks. Aircraft are allocated among flight tracks based on their origin /destination, pattern flow, time of day, and weather conditions. Separate tracks used by commuter and other small, non -jet aircraft are included. Separate arrival and departure tracks feed each runway in each flow direction. Origin /destination information has been taken from OAG data with flight stage lengths determined between SEA and each other city. Aircraft flow direction is modeled as 69% south flew. The MLS procedure was assumed to be in use during VFR 2 conditions which are approximately 15% of the time during south flow. The new flight track for the MLS project are noted as flight tracks MLS -A on Figure 14 (Page 5.18). These tracks are for arrivals only in south flow conditions. Table 5 lists the percentage of total arrivals (north and south flow) on each track with and without the MLS. The percentage utilization of all the tracks is in Appendix F. Table 5 Flight Track Utilization With and Without MLS South Flow Only Percentage of Total Arrivals Track (Figure 14) No MLS MLS ?993* MLS, 1998* JA02 0.9 0.8 0.6 JA04 1.0 0.9 0.6 JA06 1.0 0.9 0.6 JA08 1.0 0.9 0.6 JA10 1.0 0.9 0.6 JA12 1.0 0.9 0.8 JA14 1.0 0.9 0.8 JA16 0.2 0.2 0.2 PA02 1.1 1.1 1.0 PA04 1.1 1.1 1.0 MLSA 0.0 1.8 2.6 MLSB 0.0 0.1 2.7 5.7 * Utilization of Options 2 and 3 would be the same as MLS shown above. Options 2 and 3 flight tracks are shown on Figures 7 and 8 respectively. For the 1993 portion of this analysis, all Degavilland Dash 8 and Dorniers aircraft arriving from . north and east and half originating from the south of SEA were routed on the MLS -A approach during south flow /VFR 2 conditions.. for 1998, .. all Approach category A & B aircraft (See Appendix C) from the same origination points were modeled as using the MLS -A approach during south flow /VFR 2. For noise calculation purposes, this equates to 8.4 flights per day in 1993 and 14.50 in 1998 on average over a year's time. Options 2 and 3 were modeled using the same use assumptions. Noise Contours Figures 15 through 18 (Pages 5.19 through 5.22) present the noise contours for the 1993 and 1998 with and without the MLS. These contours show the 65 DNL, 70 DNL, and 75 DNL noise levels. The noise contours for Options 2 and 3 are virtually the same as the 1993 and 1998 contours with and without the preferred alternative therefore they are not shown. Existing Conditions The noise contours displayed in Figures 15 through 18 show the noise levels and their geographic distribution with and without the MLS installation. In addition, Table 6 shows the amount of property (in square miles) which is affected by each noise level (65 DNL, 70 DNL, and 75 DNL) for each of the alternatives. The impact of the preferred alternative can be seen as the difference between installing the MLS and not installing the MLS. Alternative Table 6 Summary of Noise Impacts Area Affected by Noise Contour (Sq. Mi.) 65 DNL 70 DNL 75 DNL 1993 without MLS 1993 with MLS 1998 without MLS 1998 with MLS 18.62 18.63 12.48 12.50 5 ..8 9.20 9.20 5.62 5.59 3.97 3,.97 2.17 2..17 Table 7 (Page 5.10) shows the DNL at points along the proposed flight tracks for the preferred alternative, Option 2, and Option 3 for 1993. Table 8 (Page 5.12) shows the DNL at points along the proposed flight tracks for the preferred alternative, Option 2, and Option 3 for 1998. Note that all of the data is based on the annual average day and the DNL values are in decibels. Figure 19 (Page 5.23) shows the location of the points. Environmental Consequences Examination of the contour plots for both 1993 and 1998 show that there is no significant difference in the annual average DNL contours for the proposed MLS approach procedures, as well as Options 2 and 3, versus using the existing approach procedures. At the scale of the figures shown, the contours cannot be distinguished from one another, therefore contours for Options 2 and 3 are not shown. Review of the numerical printout shows lateral contour shifts of approximately ten to twenty feet. The proposed project does not increase the noise exposure by 1.5 DNL within the 65 DNL contour, so there is _r) significant noise impact as defined by FAA Order 1050.1D, "Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts ". Time -Above Analysis In addition to the above DNL analysis, a Time -Above (TA) analysis was conducted for each year and the preferred alternative, Option 2 and Option 3. This involved calculation of the number of minutes in each day (24 hours) during which the noise level at various points would exceed 65, 70, 75 dBA. TA values are in minutes per day above the indicated decibel level. Table 9 (Page 5.14) shows the TA at points along the proposed flight tracks for the preferred alternative, Option 2, and Option 3 for 1993. Table 10 (Page 5.16) shows the DNL at points along the proposed flight tracks for the preferred alternative, Option 2, and Option 3 for 1998. The locations of the points are shown on Figure 19 (Page 5.23). All data are based on the annual average day. Comparing the time exposure for each sound level for the base case, preferred alternative, and options 2 and 3, one sees only small changes in exposure time. This conclusion is true for both the 1993 and 1998 analyses. 5.9 TABLE 7 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS--GRID POINTS DAY-NIGHT ANALYS1S--1993 LOCATION 1993 1993 1903 1993 BASE WITH WITH WITH CASE PREFERRED OPTION OPTION ACTION 2 3 1: Military Rd.S. & 26th Ave. S. DNL 69.1 2: Beacon Ave. S. & S. Othello St. DNL 69.2 59.5 59.6 3: 31st Ave. S. & S. McCellan St. DNL 69.2 69.2 59.6 59.6 54 54.2 54.1 54.1 4: 31st Ave. S. & E. Yesler Way DNL 53.6 53.8 5: 31st Ave. S. & Lake Washington Blvd. E. DNL 50.9 51.1 2.1: South 35th & 35th Ave. S. DNL 66.1 66.2 2.2: S. Trenton St. & 39th Ave. S. DNL 56.4 56.6 2.3: Stanley Sayres Park DNL 49.2 49.4 2.4: Faben Point (Mercer Island) 53.7 53.7 51.1 51.1 66.2 66.2 56.6 56.6 49.6 49.5 DNL 42.5 42.7 42.7 43.1 5 • 10 TABLE 7-- Continued NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS - -GRID POINTS DAY -NIGHT ANALYSIS- -1993 LOCATION 1993 • 1993 1993 1993 BASE WITH WITH WITH CASE PREFERRED OPTION OPTION ACTION 2 3 2.5: SR 520 & Medina Shore Line DNL 45.8 45.8 2.6: 60th Ave. N.E. & Keswick Drive DNL 43 43.4 3.1: Pacific Highway S. & S. 122nd DNL 64.2 ,, (4.3 3.2: Renton Ave. S. & S. Bozeman St. DNL 51.9 52 3.3: Lake Washington Blvd S. & 54th Ave. S. DNL 45.3 45.4 45.8 46 43.7 43.5 64.3 64.3 52 52.1 45.5 45.8 /3/ 5.11 TABLE 8 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS- -GRID POINTS DAY -NIGHT ANALYSIS -- -1998. LOCATION 1998 1998 1998 1998 BASE WITH WITH WITH CASE PREFERRED OPTION OPTION ACTION 2 3 1: Military Rd.S. & 26th Ave. S. DNL 64.4 64.8 2: Beacon Ave. S. & S. Othello St. DNL 64.8 64.8 56.5 57 57 56.9 3: 31st Ave. S. & S. McCellan St. DNL 52.6 53.1 53 52.9 4: 31st Ave. S. & E. Yesler Way DNL 52.3 52.6 5: 31st Ave. S. & Lake Washington Blvd. E. DNL 52.5 52.5 50 50.4 50.3 50.3 2.1: South 35th & 35th Ave. S. DNL 61.3 61.7 2.2: S. Trenton St. & 39th Ave. S. DNL 53.6 54.2 2.3: Stanley Sayres Park DNL 61.7 61.8 54.2 54.2 47.5 48 48.3 48.1 2.4: Faben Point (Mercer Island) DNL 40.8 41.1 41.3 42 5.12 TABLE 8-- Continued NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS - -GRID POINTS DAY -NIGHT ANALYSIS -- -1998 LOCATION 1998 1998 1998 1998 BASE WITH WITH WITH CASE PREFERRED OPTION OPTION ACTION 2 3 2.5: SR 520 & Medina Shore Line DNL 43.5 43.6 43.7 44.1 2.6: 60th Ave. N.E. & Keswick Drive DNL • 42.6 43.2 43.6 43.3 3.1: Pacific Highway S. & S. 122nd DNL 59.4 59.8 3.2: Renton Ave. S. & S. Bozeman St. DNL 59.8 59.8 49 49.4 49.5 49.8 3.3: Lake Washington Blvd S. & 54th Ave. S. DNL 43.2 43.6 43.7 , 44.5 5.13 TABLE 9 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS - -GRID POINTS TIME -ABOVE ANALYSIS - -1993 LOCATION 1993 1993 1993 1993 BASE WITH WITH WITH CASE PREFERRED OPTION OPTION ACTION 2 3 1: Military Rd.S. & 26th Ave. S. TA(65) 71.4 73.6 73.5 73.6 TA(70) 36.8 38.2 38.2 38.2 TA(75) 18.6 19.1 19.1 19.1 2: Beacon Ave. S. & S. Othello St. TA(65) 29 30.8 30.7 30.3 TA(70) 14.6 1.4.9 14.9 14.9 TA(75) 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.9 3: 31st Ave. S. & S. McCellan St. TA(65) 17.2 18.4 18.4 18.4 TA(70) 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 TA(75) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 4: 31st Ave. S. & E. Yesler Way TA(65) 13.3 14.2 14.2 14.2 TA(70) 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 TA(75) 2.1 2 2 2 5: 31st Ave. S. & Lake Washington Blvd. E. TA(65) 7.2 8 8 8 TA(70) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 TA(75) 1 1 1 1 2.1: South 35th & 35th Ave. S. TA(65) 54.4 56.5 56.2 56.6 TA(70) 27.4 28.6 28.3 28.9 TA(75) 16 16.2 16.2 16.2 2.2: S. Trenton St. & 39th Ave. S. TA(65) 21 22 22 22 TA(70) 11.5 11.8 11.8 11.8 TA(75) 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 2.3: Stanley Sayres Park TA(65) 11.5 11.7 11.7 11.7 TA(70) 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 TA(75) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.4: Faben Point (Mercer Island) TA(65) 4.3 4.3 _.� 4.3 4.3 TA(70) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 TA(75) 0 0 0 0 5.14 ..... w.. sn.. w++«. a. n+.+ 4v�.•. n» rvo-�w. wr.. en..... w... n.. r.........-,.... a�. r.. w. w< mn. V. IMw•. S: e� !k'+5t�heKr�:.Y:.�IJ.'4S'•.'J�Y F•.KC',[f!NL*./5 [�4^.ILH.� TABLE 9 -- Continued NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS- -GRID POINTS TIME -ABOVE ANALYSIS - -1993 LOCATION 1993 1993 1993 1993 BASE WITH WITH WITH CASE PREFERRED OPTION OPTION ACTION 2 3 2.5: SR 520 & Medina Shore Line TA(65) 5 5 5 5 TA(70) 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 TA(75) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.6: 60th Ave. N.E. & Keswick Drive TA(65) 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 TA(70) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 TA(75) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.1: Pacific Highway S. & S. 122nd TA(65) 46.4 48.3 47.5 48.5 TA(70) 24.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 TA(75) 13.9 14.2 14.2 14.2 3.2: Renton Ave. S. & S. Bozeman St. TA(65) 15.6 15.9 15.9 15.9 TA(70) 7.8 8.1 8.1 8.1 TA(75) 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.3: Lake Washington Blvd S. & 54th Ave. S. TA(65) 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.6 TA(70) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 TA(75) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.15 TABLE 10 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS - -GRID POINTS TIME -ABOVE ANALYSIS - -1998 LOCATION 1998 1998 1998 1998 BASE WITH WITH WITH CASE PREFERRED OPTION OPTION ACTION 2 3 ... 1: Military Rd. S. & 26th Ave. S. TA(65) 65.7 69.7 69.5 69.6 TA(70) 29.3 32 31.9 32 TA(75) 12.3 13.5 13.5 13.5 2: Beacon Ave. S. & S. Othello St. TA(65) 23.6 27.1 27 26.4 TA(70) 9.9 10.6 10.6 10.6 TA(75) 2.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 3: 31st Ave. S. & S. McCellan St. TA(65) 11.7 14.3 14.3 14.3 TA(70) 4 4.4 4.4 4.4 TA(75) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 4: 31st Ave. S. & E. Yesler Way TA(65) 9.7 11.8 11.8 11.8 TA(70) 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 TA(75) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 5: 31st Ave. S. & Lake Washington Blvd. E. TA(65) 5.1 6.7 6.7 6.7 TA(70) 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 TA(75) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.1: South 35th & 35th Ave. S. TA(65) 45.9 49.7 49.1 49.9 TA(70) 20.6 23.1 22.6 23.6 TA(75) 9.4 10 10 10 2.2: S. Trenton St. & 39th Ave. S. TA(65) 16.4 18.3 18.3 18.3 TA(70) 6.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 TA(75) 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3: Stanley Sayres Park TA(65) 6.3 6.9 6.9 6.9 TA(70) 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 TA(75) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.4: Faben Point (Mercer Island) TA(65) 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 TA(70) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 TA(75) 0 0 0 0 5.16 TABLE 10- Continued NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS- -GRID POINTS TIME -ABOVE ANALYSIS - -1998 LOCATION 1998 1998 1998 1998 BASE WITH WITH WITH CASE PREFERRED . OPTION OPTION ACTION 2 3 2.5: SR 520 & Medina Shore Line TA(65) 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 TA(70) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 TA(75) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.6: 60th Ave. N.E. & Keswick Drive TA(65) 0.8 1 1 1 TA(70) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 TA(75) 0 0 0 0 3.1: Pacific Highway S. & S. 122nd TA(65) 37.7 41.4 40 41.7 TA(70) 16.6 17.7 17.7 17.7 TA(75) 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.2: Renton Ave. S. & S. Bozeman St. TA(65) 9.1 10 10 10 TA(70) 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 TA(75) 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 3,3: Lake Washington Blvd S. & 54th Ave. S. TA(65) 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2 TA(70) 0.7 0.7 - 0.7 0.7 TA(75) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.17 : %:`.0 :%, `sue iii::; J�:;h:? z .�' � Ya£+"6� ,}t,� :• fi:''•':. :.z "Beattie= co ay on' rr ft +,.:!z:,c ^: %; s)a[?�.• {. +,;< }:tc�`; %t;?v +:r':..: • +•::• � 'w..< ,• . a% :..:; , ii t,.:. ,.:•:;�:. � }>'�iao6;:>3N� .3Q.Y(x.� r Ri Lis rC3,_ FLIGHT TRACK " FLIGHT TRACK DESIGNATOR Legend P Prop J Jet SOUTH FLOW FLIGHT TRACKS WITH MLS I' l.0l_ Sil1i1 \ , ----, 1±-± _--_ ,-_-..,-....-. _ _, i„_ ..• .-.__... 1 . - -1 • .I 1 ti 1 4 4 I - \ NT I 0!• /12 . - : _ - . .: l . : 4 • -. . . . . . ) - • • .4,., ;',. -71., pi_ 1.. Lft %' I' 1 'I ' - • - • \11], • '' • ..' !.1. i /T-Mi'LL, Etj_if . 3 _i .1-7::-11.--------- •I) -"iii-:- 91! 11 1 111 .... -.L ,, .-.."-..--.,_: ST.4.4 12yi ti 1 11 Single Family Residential 1 Residential Mobile Home Park Transient Lodgings frill School L., Hospital; Nursing Home iww, Church IIij Government Services Office; Professional 7, 4/4 General Retail 9 Manufacturing s-:-A Park; Open; Cemetery v� 7•1 O O Z O OU hZ op W El Single Family Residential b Y I Multi—Family Residential Mobile home Park Transient Lodgings School I II Hospital; Nursing Home Church Government Services Office; Professional L.----;:=:-::,:is.::. ,,,,,r= ...,,,, General Retail Manufacturing Park; Open; Cemetery 1Yater Recreation Airport Historic Site • -.7::•._:=-•-:. I f it i t . : 1 ' f ' .:-_-. •._ : - :-.7:_-. :T - Fi."1.1eiT _.1 111 \ .,.: - , • ' Ai 1 Ps .- •.s.,:•':, ..- . ---:_-_,t6-;:iF-_-:17-...::::_-- 1k;71,,, ••'.....-:,---, --7---;:i•-_ --_—.7.-E:-. .11t1::.. ••••:' -. -__.::.:-1.1-11:: _ 11:: U 1:: LI •-.. LI .._•-:.: I., • .. ,,,- \k• 1 Single Family Residential I Multi—Family Residential Mobile Home Park Transient Lodgings School Hospital; Nursing Home Church Government Services Office; Professional General Retail Manufacturing Park; Open; Cemetery w cc > 0 1-- u_ 5 co rx w 0 cr ▪ < 0 (.) w CC LLI 0 fr: X = LLJ 00) Z 8 Single Family Residential Multi—Family Residential Mobile Home Park Transient Lodgings School Hospital; Nursing Home Church Government Services Office; Professional General Retail Manufacturing Park; Open; Cemetery Y Tf Water Recreation Airport. • Historic Site W c> Op co �a cc 3 w O.j a zo Ow UoC 1.1.1 CC CC w vj W O a a w= w O0) Z o) II Single Family Residential Multi— I�a�nily Residential Mobile Home Park Transient Lodgings 1i1llijl School �!! Hospital; Nursing llome Church Government Services Office; Professional General Retail Manufacturing In -r- n r r N to .111111 Single Family Residential 1111 Multi—Family Residential Mobile Ilome Park Transient Lodgings [11111i1 school Hospital; Nursing Home F.7 E 1M Church Government, Services Office; Professional General Retail Manufacturing Park; Open; Cemetery p71.7. Water Recreation 1 Airport • Historic Site 11 1-4 In • ehi Single Family 1?csidenlial Multi— Family Residential Mobile home Park Transient, Lodgings School llospilal; Nursing Ilotne Church Goverment Services Of (ice; Professional General Relail alnnii(arl urinn w CC O r-: Lt. a (f) z cc cc w za OC"/ Ucc woe CCw �w O CC wI w� O0) Z rn Single Family Residential I hitilti-Family Residential Home Park Transient. Lodgings III!!! ill!School • ill Hospital; Nursing Home Church .._.:1 Government Services --. Office; Professional .NA General Retail Manufacturing Park; Open; Cemetery Water Recreation Airport • Historic Site LU cc > 0 P. itt z w cc 0i < 0 a C.) cc w CC CC W 0 CC C” = LLI co — co 00) Z cr) Kirkl Hun(. Point 123 iln th !Jahn y 1)1 Groat Pt Duwamish cad Calkins Point Alki Point 1-OPTION 3 LOCATION OF GRID POINTS FOR NOISE ANALYSIS Bailey Poninsul MLS A Williams c; South Pt Brace Pt Kennyclal Colonial; Pt 'EXISTING li Beach vl- f :.-- Inuelsea X., _Fr ....„ . -- -- , -.... f •,./ Sealturst Li . 1 I . . r ---,— 1 ir Secoma 'oin tools s iith .IN 11 We Po i aster lSI i Hunt. • Point !Jahn Groat Pt Calkins Point )A /ING 1111/11(;( A/ki Point 423 1- OPTION 3 Poninsul Williams Poin South Pt Kennydal Coleman Pt EXISTING LS -16R 3ryn Mawr 1 r,il mit uea th FLY VISUAL SEGMENT Ingeleea 'oint ?eels Stzalturst Secutua Beach L ► ,I .,, 1 IJ Ic lit s I thanie Normandy Pa Point Heyde mart .l Oink — ' `t- B. IMPACTS FROM ELECTRONIC EMISSIONS PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PEL). The permissible exposure limits for RF /microwave radiation shown in Table 11 shall apply to all occupants of controlled areas. There is no distinction between occupational and nonoccupational exposure in their application. NOTE The PEL's were adopted from the American National Standards Institute, ANSI C95.1 -1982 Standard. This standard is comprised of a series of radio frequency protection guides which are defined as "the radio frequency field strength or equivalent plane wave power density which should not be exceeded without (1) careful consideration of the reasons for doing so, (2) careful estimation of the increased energy deposition in the human body, and (3) careful consideration of the increased risk of unwanted biological effects. Frequency Range (MHz) Mean Squared Electric Field Strength (E2) (2/m2) TABLE 11 RF /MICROWAVE PEL'S Mean Squared Magnetic Field Strength (H2) (A2 /m2) Equi'valent Plane Wave Power Density (PD) (mW /cm2) 0.3 3 3 30 30 300 300 1,500 1,500 100,000 400,000 4,000(900/f2) 4,000 4,000(f/300) 20,000 2.5 0.025(900/f2) 0.025 0.025(f/300) 0.125 100 900/f2 1.0 f /300 5.0 a. For near field exposures where power density (PD) cannot be measured accurately, the only applicable PEL's are the mean squared electric (E) and magnetic (H) field strengths. Equivalent plane wave PD can be calculated from field strength measurements as follows: PD in mW /cm2 = E2/3770 (where E2 is in V2 /m2) PD in mW /cm2 = 37.7 H2 (where H2 is in A2 /m2) b. For pulsed and continuous wave (CW) fields, the PD and the squares of the field strengths (E2 and H2) are averaged over any 6- minute period. c. For fields consisting of multiple frequencies, the fraction of the PEL incurred within each frequency range should be determined and the sum of all fractions should not exceed unity. 5.24 MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEMS. a. Hazards. Microwave landing systems ( MLS's) transmit in the 5000 to 5250 MHz frequency band. Therefore, the PEL is 5.0 mW /cm2 (E2 = 20,000 V2 /m2. Surveys of prototype MLS's operating in this range have revealed antenna aperture RF /microwave levels ranging from 0.02 to 0.15 mW /cm2 power density, all far below the PEL. Microwave Landing Systems (MLS) transmit in the 5000 to 5250 MHz frequency band. The Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), adopted from the American National Standards Institute, for this frequency range is 5.0 mW /cm (squared). Surveys of prototype MLS's operating in this frequency revealed a power density from 0.02 to .15 mW /cm (squared). Since this is far below the PEL, there is no significant impacts from MLS emissions. The source of this information is FAA Order 3910.3A "Radiation Health Hazard and Protection ". C. IMPACTS ON UTILITIES There will be very little impact on utilities. The added electrical energy consumption from the MLS will be provided by 110/240 volt, 60 Hertz single phase service. The electronic equipment will operate at less than 1000 watts. D. IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY Air quality will not be affected, therefore there is no significant impact from any of the alternatives. The MLS equipment will emit no fumes. The number of aircraft operations will not increase due to this project. E. IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY AND WETLANDS None of the possible locations of the MLS equipment would impact any wetlands, surface or ground water. F. IMPACTS ON BIOTIC COMMUNITIES Site A is adjacent to a parking lot and a freeway. The vegetation is controlled and constantly disturbed by human activities. The project will not have an impact of any existing biotic communities greater than that typically found in an urban community. For Options 2 and 3, the MLS equipment would be located on the airport. This area is highly controlled to prevent animals and /or vegetation from interfering with aeronautical activity. Therefore none of the alternatives will impact 5.25 Cro biotic communities. G. IMPACTS ON HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ' ur?!,': A' �YFJN. i'^. 1. 'A'x:"ri::1�••:��1.'SiS):R4.":x: Site A is adjacent to a parking lot recently built by the Port of Seattle. At the time of the construction of the parking lot, the Port coordinated the project area, including the proposed location of the MLS, with the State of Washington, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Appendix G includes a copy of the coordination. The response from this office stated that the project site did not include any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register or State Register of Historic Places. For Options 2 and 3, the MLS equipment would be located on the airport. This area has been disturbed by grading for the construction of the existing runways. No properties of Historical or Archeological significance are located at this site. H. IMPACTS ON ENDANGERED SPECIES This project will not disturb the habitat of any endangered species since the new flight paths are over areas already overflown by aircraft. Since there are no new overflights planned, there is no impacts on endangered species. Changes in flight tracks are minor, so impact to endangered species due to the change in operations would be negligible. I. IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION The impacts associated with the MLS construction are limited and short term. Total construction period is less than three months. Construction activities include excavation for foundations and cabling, concrete work, placement of the antenna, electrical work and other related work. No significant impacts will result from this activity. 5.26 SECTION 6 PREPARERS, LIST OF PARTIES TO WHOM SENT. LIST OF PREPARERS This section lists those individuals who assisted in the preparation of this environmental assessment and who were responsible for the independent evaluation of information submitted during the preparation process. Federal Aviation Administration Sarah P. Dalton, - B.S., Engineering /Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1979; B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1985, Seattle Metropolitan Region Planning Officer, Seattle Airports District Office. Seven years Environmental Specialist for the Seattle and Helena Airports District Offices. Study coordinator for the MLS Demonstration Project. Responsible for text preparation of assessment. Dennis G. Oseenkop, - B.S., Interdisciplinary: Mathematics and Physics, Portland State University, 1965; M.B.A., University of Puget Sound, 1979. Regional Environmental Officer, Airports Division. Prior experience: 3 years with U.S.E.P.A. (environmental evaluation and noise control) and 13 years with FAA in development of environmental and noise compatibility program documentation. Responsible for regional technical review, text preparation, editing of assessment. Larry W. Jacobson, - B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1967. Lead Engineer for Navigational Aids, Establishment Engineering Branch, Airway Facilities Division. Experience: 3 years in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 21 years with FAA performing civil engineering functions. Responsible for performing Airway Facilities Division review of the assessment relating to site locations and actual facility features. Roger A. Sloan, - B.S., Aviation Management, Oklahoma City University, 1975; Twenty -three years Air Traffic Control, FAA. Sixteen years as supervisor; presently Assistant Manager for Plans & Procedures, Seattle Tower /TRACON. Provided Air Traffic expertise on air traffic procedures and benefits. Richard E. Prang - B. A. Liberal Studies, Central Washington State College, 1977. Manager, System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain Region. Prior Experience: 35 years in Air Traffic Control which includes Manager, Spokane Air Traffic Control Tower; Manager, McChord Radar Approach Control; Manager Automation Staff, Northwest Region, En route and terminal Air Traffic Control Specialist. Responsible for review of Air Traffic Control procedures. James W. Mast - B.S., Mathematics, Ohio Statc: University, 1967. Six years with U.S. Navy as flight instructor /combat pilot. Air traffic controller (tower) Oakland International Airport, Oakland, California. Seven years with FAA flight inspection and instrument procedures development. Seven years Northwest Mountain Region Flight Procedures Branch. Currently responsible for implementing instrument procedures for States of Montana and Washington. 6.1 Robert A. Wells - B.S., Geology, Yale University, 1969, graduate work, biological oceanography, University of Washington 1976 -1979. Planner II, Aviation Planning, Port of Seattle. Prior experience: Twelve years with Port of Seattle including ten years in Environmental Management section. Responsible for compiling the Integrated Noise Model input and generating the noise contours. Karl B. Lewis, B.A., University of California at San Diego, 1974; J.D., University of Southern California School of Law, 1977; M.P.A., University of Southern California, 1979. Prior experience: 14 years as attorney for Federal Aviation Administration, responsible for environmental law and other aspects of administrative law. Responsibile for overall regional legal review of final EA text. 6.2 Mr. Alan Ament 618 Fullerton Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 ANAC Bruce Howard, Representative 8526 E. Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mr. Robert F. Angle 18968 Marine View Drive Seattle, WA 98166 Arin Jhavari, Chairman 1250 S.W. 152nd Seattle, WA 98— Mr. Hans Aschenbach Suite 209 College Club Building 505 Madison Seattle, WA 98104 Captain R.R. Austin Division Manager West /American Airlines Worldway Postal Center P. 0. Box 92246 Los Angeles, CA 90009 Mr. Jorgen Bader 6536 29th Avenue, NE Seattle, WA 98115 Mr. John Bailey P. 0. Box 299 Seahurst, WA 98062 Mr. Charles Bahn 2319 N. 45th Street #103 Seattle, WA 98103 -6905 Ms. Marge Bakken 826 South 136th Seattle, WA 981688 Captain Colin Barnes British Airways POB 10 /Speedbird House Hounslow, MDDX England, United Captain Jay Barnwell Federal Express P. 0. Box 727 Memphis, TN 38194 -0123 Mr. Burch Baylor 6800 26th Avenue, NE Seattle, WA 98115 -7137 Mr. Neil Bennett Assistant Director Air Transport Association 8939 Sepulveda Blvd. 11403 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Ms. Barbara Blunuaatein Marine Services /Planning Pier 66 Seattle, WA 98111 Ms. Minnie 0. Brasher 846 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 6.3 Ms. Doris Burns 2511 Montlake Place E. Seattle, WA 98112 Ms. Viola Butler 2404 S. 146th Street Seattle, WA .98168 Ms. Nea Carroll Touchstone 5425 Lake Washington Blvd. S. Seattle, WA 98188 CASE Mr. Dave Smith 14508 25th S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 Professor James D. Chalupnik 5600 N.E. 77th Street Seattle, WA 98115 Mr. Bill Chatham 7200 So. 180th #101 Tukwila, WA 98188 -5538 Captain J.G. Colpitts Senior VP of Flight Ops Transworld Airlines 100 S. Bedford Road Mt. Kisco, NY 10549 Mr. Ed Cook DHL Airways, Inc. 333 Twin Dolphin Drive , Redwood City, CA 94065 Captain Robert Costello American West Airlines Sky Harbor Intl Airport 4000 Sky Harbor Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85034 Ms. Marilyn Cox 9118 NE 13th Bellevue, WA 98004 Ms. Sally Dahl 9216 NE 13th Bellevue, WA 98004 Mr. Paul Dunholter Mestre Greve Associates 280 Newport Drive Center Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ryk A. Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Co. Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK 74120 Duwamish Tribal Office 15507 1st Avenue South Seattle, WA 98148 Captain Finn Dising Scandanavian Airlines SeaTac International Airport Seattle, WA 98158 Mr. Dick Ericson 2641 South 163rd Seattle, WA 98166 Mr. Greg Fewins, Senior Planner City of Federal Way Dept. of Comm. Dev. 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 Mr. Paul J. Eglicle Paul J. Eglicle & Associates 1212 Bank of California Bldg. 900 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Ms. Darlene Flynn c/o Councilman Jim Street City of Seattle 1106 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 98014 Ms. Vicky Foreman 2235 SW 330th Federal Way, WA 98023 Mr. Arden Forrey 4916 Purdue Avenue, N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 Captain Victor Fond), Reeve Aleutian Airways 4700 International Airport Road Anchorage, AK 99502 Chief Pilot Emery Worldwide Old Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Captain W.G. Frisbee PAA San Francisco Intl Airport San Francisco, CA 94128 6.4 Mr. Dale Gredler Planner City of Normandy Park 801 SW 174th Street Normandy Park, WA 98166 Ms. Sigrid Guyton 7404 NE 18th Bellevue, WA 98004 Ms. Carol Heltzel 8245 SE 61st Mercer Island, W a 98040 Ms. Lorilei Herres 846Q W. Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sven Holme Northwest Airlines Regional Flight Office SeaTac International Airport Seattle, WA 98158 Mr. Curt Horner Seattle /King Co9unty Environmental Health Dept. 506 Second Avnue 201 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Wilson Hughes President Northern Air Cargo 2900 W. lnt'l Airport Rd. Anchorage AK 99502 Ms. Irene Jones 18320 38th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98188 Mr. Joe Joyce Cargolux Aviation West P. 0. Box 520984 Miami International Airport Miami, FL 33152 King County Building & Land Development Suite A, Attn:SEPO INFO 3600 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400 Mr. Bob Klug Laurethurst Community Club 4326 N.E. 42nd Street Seattle, Wa 98105 -5102 Mr. Michael Knapp City of SeaTac 19215 28th Avenue South Seatc, WA 98188 U►po Koskela Finnair Mannerheimintie 102, Bx 6 SF -00250 Helsinki, Finland Mr. Hart Langer United Airlines P. 0. Box 66100 Chicago, IL 60666 Leshi Improvement Council James Leonard, Rep. Aircraft Noise 935 31st South Seattle, WA 98144 Mr. Leroy Lockwood Staff Mgr. Flight Ops. Japan Airlines 1350 Bayshore Hwy Ste.800 Burlingame, CA 94010 Mr. Jim Lynch 6335 NE Lariat Loop Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Ms. Marian MacKenzie 401 South 216th Seattle, WA 98188 Mr. Brett Marck 2330 32nd Avenue So. Seattle, WA 98144 Captain Jess Marker United Airlines SeaTac International Airport Seattle, WA 98158 Chief Pilot Martinair Holland N.V. P08 7507 /Schipol Airport NL -1118 ZG Amsterdam The Netherlands, NETHLDS Captain Joseph McLaughlin U.S. Air Incorporated RIDC Prkwst /Commerce Drive Parkwest Building #2, 5th Floor Pittsburg, PA 15275 Mr. John McNamar.- Regional Director Air Transportation Association 3333 Quebec Street, Suite 9010 Denver, CO 80207 Mr. David Meyerson 4260 Shoredub Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mr. Ted Misselwiiz 7250 N. Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Capt. Bob Morgenfeld Airborne Express 145 Hunter Drive Wilmington, OH 45177 Mr. John Musgrave 2727 57th Southwest Seattle, WA 98116 Mr. Michael Oswald 11056 108th Place, NE Kirkland, WA 98033 Mr. Mike Oswald Airline Pilots Association 15 South Grady Way 11526 Evergreen Building Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Don Padelford 2001 Western Avenue Suite 320 Seattle, WA 98121 Mr. Gary Page Manager Continental Airlines 2929 Ellen Parkway, Suite 1484 Houston, TX 77019 Mr. Calvin Peterson Sun Country 7701 26th. Avenue South , Minneapolis, MN 55450 6.5 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Room 205 200 W. Mercer Street Seattle, WA 98119 Puget Sound Regional Council Attn: Peter Beaulieu 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Queen Anne Community Council Kirk Robbins, Chair Number 5 1302 Queen Anne Avenue Seattle, WA 98109 Tom and Carmen Radke 7409 SW 259th Way Vashon Island, WA 98070 Ms. Georgianne Ray P. O. Box 68245 Seattle, WA 98168 Mr. Robert Rudolph, M.D. 1455 Evergreen Point Road Bellevue, WA 98006 -3508 Mr. Mark Salem Northwest Airlines Department E -7310 5101 Northwest Drive St. Paul, MN 55111 -3034 City of SeaTac Land Use Division 19215 28th Ave. So. SeaTac, WA 98188 Seattle Community Council Federation Jannette Williams, Co -Chair 7132 58th NE Seattle, WA 98115 Seattle /King County Department of Public Health Attn: Steve Burke 172 20th Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 Mr. Gary Schmid Ryan International 303 Corporate Center Vandalta, 011 45377 Captain Mark Schmidt Connie Kalitta Services 842 Willow Run Airport Ypsilanti, MI 48198 Mr. Otto Schoetzow 11862 16th South Seattle, WA 98198 Mr. Henry Sharp Long Range Planning City of Seattle 200 Municipal Building 600 4111 Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Mr.Mark Shephard P. 0. Box 21926 Seattle, WA 98111 Mr. Eric Shields Director of Planning City of Des Moines 21650 11th Avenue South Des Moines, WA 98198 6.6 Mr. Dave Siegfried VP of Operations Burlington Air Express 18200 Von Karman Avenue Irvine, CA 92715 Mr. Don Smith, Manager King County Intl Airport P. 0. Box 80245 Seattle, WA 98108 Captain Evan Smith Horizon Airlines 5551 NE Cornfoot Portland, OR 97218 Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce P. 0. Box 58591 Seattle, WA 98138 Mr. Jake Stampalia 14409 22nd Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 State Department of Arch. & Historic Preservation 111 21st Avenue W M/S KL -11 Olympia, WA 98504 State Dept. of Wildlife Attn: Ted Muller 16018 Millcreek Blvd. Millcreek, WA 98012 President Robert Stephan Great American Airways, Inc. 2620 Plumb Lane Reno, NV 89502 Ms. Barbara Stuhring 24828 9th Place S. Des Moines, WA 98198 Capt. Likhip Suranakapan Thai Airways International 89 Vibhavaidi Rangsit Road Bangkok 9 Thailand, Thailand Mr. Curtis D. Tanner U.S.Fiish & Wildlife Service 3704 Griffin Lane SE, #102 Olympia, WA 98501 -2192 -City of Tukwila 6200 SouthCenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98— Ms. Toni E. Turner 28620 Pacific Highway So. Federal Way, WA 98003 U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Environmental Office 1321 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. EPA Region 10 Environmental Evaluation Brch. Mail Stop 443 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Captain Jack Volkel Delta Airlines, Inc. Chief Pilot SeaTac International Airport Seattle, WA 98158 Mr. Bob Warren Systems Chief Pilot Evergreen International 3850 Three Mlle Lane McMinnville, OR 97128 Washington State Dept. of Transportation 8600 Perimeter Road South Seattle, WA 98108 Washington Dept. of Transportation Transportation Building KF -01 Olympia, WA 98504 -5201 Washington Dept. of Ecology Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Air Transportation Commission 604 Evergreen RD/MS:FJ64 711 S. Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98504 Mr. Bernie Watson Hawaiian Airlines P. O. Box 30008 Honolulu, HI 96820 Captain R.B. Weatherly Canadian Airlines International One Grant McConachie Way Vancouver International Airport Vancouver BC V78 1V1 Canada Mr. Marty Wine Asst. to Rep. Gary Locke House of Representatives 204 J O'Brien Building (AS -33) Olympia, WA 98504 6.7 Mr. John Whitlock 11814 Dolphin Point Trail SW Vashon, WA 98070 Captain Dennis Wisniewski Amerijet 11427 S.E. 186th Street Renton, WA 98055 DRAFT ENVIROMIENTAL ASSESSMENT COM14ENT LETTERS Commenter dumber. Commenter Name 1 John M. Whitlock 2 Emery Worldwide Airlines 3 King County International Airport 4 Virginia Mason Clinic 5 Donald F. Padelford 6 Fred Alkire 7 Jorgen Bader 8 Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc. 9 City of Federal Way 10 No Name 11 David Myerson 12 Ravenna - Bryant Community Association 13 City of Medina 14 Robert Solomon 15 James A. Rymsza 16 Kenneth & Cathy Shiovitz 17 Robert C. Coburn 18 Leschi Improvement Council 19 Martha L. Means 20 Minnie 0. Brasher 21 Angela B. LaVigne 22 Georgianne Ray 23 Carole G. Stock 24 Arden W. Torrey 25 George & Vicki Rinehart 26 Shirley Ward 27 William F. Ward 28 Phyllis Hatfield 29 John H. Powel 30 Washington State Department of Ecology 31 Joan W. Gottfried 32 Patricia J. Sparks, M.D., M.P.H. 33 Nancy Rerucha 34 Steven L. Dubinsky 35 David A. Waldschmidt 36 Carol M. Eastman 37 Pickard & Murphy 38 Daniel J. Mitchell III 39 Nick Gunderson 40 John G. Williams 41 South Central King County School District 1406 42 Mrs. James Gerlitz 43 John F. Barber 44 City of Tukwila 45 Highline Public Schools 46 City of Normandy Park 47 Leschi Improvment Council 48 Gary A. Dohrn 49 City of Seattle 50 Marsha Tanaka 51 John Spertuo and Sarah Hoffmann 52 53 54 55. 56 Andrew R. Goulding AIA J. Richard Aramburo Martin Liibowitt Sharon Ingalls 'Chris Randolph Sarah P. Dalton Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Sarah, Tear; . _ l.y. .L. zap- My comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed installation of two Microwave Landing Systems (MLS) at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA) follow. 1) The primary motivation for Noise Mediation to request the FAA to designate SEA as a demonstration project for MLS was to "offer possibilities for noise relief measures, especially in regard to the Duwamish /Elliott Bay Corridor" not to increase the efficiency of airport operations. 2) The work group chose SEA's project as the one project out of nine mandated by the U. S. Congress that required "analysis of the potential to improve the efficiency of air port operations i.e. reduce delays ". What were the other eight possible choices? 3) An objective unique to SEA of "minimizing noise impacts on the community" was established. This became "avoid a flight track that deviated significantly, from existing traffic patterns" in rejecting Options 2 & 3. 4) Options 1 & 5 with flight paths over the Duwamish /Elliott Bay Corridor were rejected because they required two aircraft to perform a side step maneuver. A boresite approach between 7 -13 degrees East over Lake Washington with one side step was not considered. I suggest that the objectives of Noise Mediation would be better served if the proposed MLS project DEA focused on a flight track over Lake Washington to demonstrate- the ability to contain flight tracks over water virtually all the time... not just efficiency improvement possibilities. The impacts of such an Option (between 2 & 3) should be fully studied and documented out to 55 LDN exposure levels. Once again Noise Mediation has been misused to justify 'expansion at SEA. The first being noise reduction to cover up the impact of a 3rd runway and now, MLS to land more planes under the guise of efficiency. cc: TRC SNAC Very truly yours, « John M. Whitlock 11814 Dolphin Point Trail SW Vashon Island, WA 98070 (206) 567 -5145 `L d.. EMERY WORLDWIDE RIRUNES February 6, 1992 A Company Ms. Sarah P. Dalton Acting Supervisor, Washington Section Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: FE3 • �ir�arP'r ..' rj Acknowledge receipt of the draft Environmental Assessment for the proposed installation of microwave landing systems at SEA -TAC. At the present time, Emery Worldwide Airlines does not have active plans for the installation of MLS equipment in its aircraft. As a result, we have no specific comments on the DEA except to express a categorical concern that future testing of the system not impact upon normal aviation operations at SEA -TAC. We would, however, like to stay abreast of developments. Therefore, please favorably consider a request that a copy of the final EA and any other publication developed during this program be forwarded to us at the following address: Emery Worldwide Airlines 303 Corporate Center Drive Vandalia, OH 45377 Sincerely, D A. Smith Director of Operations cc: Pat Nelson DAS:jr Attn: Don A. Smith Director of Operations 303 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, VANDALIA, OH 45377 (513) 898.0388 MILES AHEAD King County International Airport Department of Public Works P.O. Box 80245 Seattle, Washington 98108 (206) 296 -7380 FAX (206) 296 -0190 February 7, 1992 Ms. Sarah P. Dalton Acting Supervisor, Washington Section Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 -4056 RE: Draft Environmental Assessment - MLS Demonstration, Project at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Dear Ms. Dalton: This office has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment for the MLS Demonstration Program at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport dated January 1992. We support the project for the potential benefits to more effectively handle aircraft landing at Sea -Tac. However, it is not clear whether the MLS installation would have any affect on the approach procedure's at King County International Airport (BFI). It seems as though runway acceptance efficiency at BFI would also increase for ILS approaches since the approach procedures for the two airports are inter - related. The draft report does not comment on this issue If you have any questions, please call me at 296 -7380. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the report. Very truly yours, ING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT onald W. Smith Airport Manager DWS:lm February 12, 1992 Ms. Sarah P. Dalton Acting Supervisor Washington Section FAA 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE Section of Haaatology and Oncology Eastside Citizens Against Aircraft Noise strongly opposes the proposed movement of the incoming turbojet flight stream 4400 feet eastward of its present location, as outlined in the draft EA for the MLS demonstration program at SeaTac. Throughout mediation, the MLS was proposed as a way of keeping the planes over noise insensitive areas, specifically the Duwamish industrial corridor. Instead the FAA is proposing to route another incoming stream over a Seattle residential community and to indicate that there will be no environmental impact from that is simply not true. Lake Washington is a quiet residential lake. Already the incoming stream over Capitol Hill with the southwesterly breezes creates a constant rumble over the Lake in an area where the ambient noise level is otherwise quite low. To move the incoming stream or any significant part of it a mile eastward will increase that noise and greatly decrease the quality of the environment surrounding Lake Washington. I would point out that Lake Washington is surrounded entirely by residential neighborhoods without commercial activity and without industrial noise. At a minimum, an environmental impact statement must be filed. The FAA should reconsider and use this technology to bring planes in and out the Duwamish industrial corridor and reduce the impact of noise on the Seattle community. Sincerely, it- Robert H. Rudolph, M.D. President, ECAAN RHR:njp 1100 Ninth Avenue P.O.Box900 C2 -S Seattle. WA 98111.0900 Telephone (206) 223 -6600 a Donald F. Padelford 320 Marketplace One 2001 Western Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 -2114 206 - 441 -1155 fax: 441 -9546 February 18, 1992 Sarah P. Dalton Acting Supervisor, Washington Section FAA Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for the MLS Demonstration Program at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport January 1992 Dear Sarah: As you know the environmental community has generally been supportive of the MLS concept and its implementation at SeaTac. The Noise Mediation project at SeaTac asked for the implementation of a MLS approach. The reason we in the environmental community made such a request is that representations were given to us that MLS would allow curved approaches, thus effecting the possibility of significant noise relief if, for instance, the Duwamish corridor were used. Since MLS has operational benefits as outlined in the Draft EA ( "DEA "), it seemed that this could truly be a "win -win" type of program. It seems that these representations were disingenuous. The proposal as outlined in the DEA far from being a win -win is the equivalent of opening a second ILS down the heart of Seattle. In highway terms it would be like building more traffic lanes in an already severely impacted area. While the DEA envisions an all - commuter use of this "lane" to start, it also foresees jet use in the near future (1998). Unfortunately our experience with the FAA makes us believe that what is initially a "demonstration" project generally &rows into a full -blown standard procedure over time. There is no reason to beheve that as more planes become equipped with MLS, that this approach won't become just another "lane" into SeaTac with all its associated noise impacts. The FAA may consider a shift of flight paths by twenty blocks to be consistent with the objective of "avoid[ing] a flight track that deviate[s] significantly from existing traffic patterns" (page 3.5), but the affected communities do not. We consider it particularly offensive that this procedure will be used to "reduce taxi time" (page 5.7), and that there is a calculation of Delay Savings (appendix B), but no comparable calculation of the cost on the city's quality of life. Airline passengers can taxi another sixty seconds or pay an additional few cents for their ticket more easily than homeowners can learn to put up with another assault on their well- being. Therefore, until such time as the FAA is able to implement a MLS program that benefits the surrounding communities as well as the airlines, we ask and implore that the FAA and the Port of Seattle drop this ill- conceived project. Sincerely, 0,A-Jd Donald F. Padelford individually and as approved by the Madison Park Community Council 2.17.92 cc Senator Brock Adams Senator Slade Gorton Congressman Jim McDermott (Jane Sanders) Mayor Norm Rice (Tom Tierney) Councilmember Jim Street Senator Janice Niemi Representative Cal Andersen Representative Jesse Wineberry Port Commissioners Seattle Community Counsel Federation (Jeanette Williams) MPCC (Howard Roth) Fred Alkire 6828 29th NE Seattle, WA 98115 23 February 1992 Federal Aviation Administration Attention: Sarah P. Dalton M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 - 4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: It is my understanding that the Federal Aviation Administration is considering a revision in the approach and landing tracks for SeaTac Airport. Specifically, the question is the addition of a second track, east of the current track, that can either be over residential areas of North Seattle (MLS A) or further to the East over Lake Washington. I live under and experience the current pattern with flights as early as 6 AM and as late as 10 PM. I have observed the pattern since it was first introduced and believe that you might be interested in what I have seen. The single most astonishing observation that I have made is that there is a significant variation between the paths laid out on paper and those actually flown by the aircraft. The variations are in all axes, that is, east -west orientation as well as altitude. Turns into the runway line are commonly sloppy with drifting beyond the desired turning radius, demonstrating a lack of precision by the pilots. This happens whether the carrier is large or small, and whether the aircraft is large or small. My hypothesis is that the cause rests with the pilot rather than the system, that it is human error. The meaning for any new track system is it should be "conceptually and operationally" proven through incremental steps. Separation between the tracks should be maximized during an extended testing period until it is shown that they work in Seattle and the specific local environmental conditions. Therefore, my recommendation is' that (4) the proposea track separation be increased for a significant period of testing by moving the proposed "MLS A" to a track over Lake Washington and (2) simultaneously moving the existingILS -16R track to the west so that it lies over the Interstate 5 corridor. Thank you for consideration of these inputs. Would you please include these in the official comments file "for the record ". CC: Port of Seattle Commission Hon. Jim McDermott 10 Regards, Fred Alkire JORGEN BADER 6536- -29th Ave. N.E. Seattle,Wa., 98115 Federal Aviation Administration c/o Sarah P. Dalton, M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA. 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: February 23, 1992 The selection of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport for the M.L.S. Demonstration Program reflects recommendations made by the Port of Seattle's Noise Mediation Process and, three years earlier, the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Aircraft Overflights appoointed by King County and the Port of Seattle. During each process, the Port and the F.A.A. had promoted the M.L.S. system as new technology that would open up possibilities of reduce exposure of residents to aircraft noise by routing the planes over the water. See the Port's Noise Mediation document, paragraph 4 and the Report of the JOAC Report, paragraph 8. This promise garnered citizen support for the project. The draft environmental assessment makes a passing reference to minimizing noise impacts on the community, p. 1.1. and paragraph A, p.3.1. However, the proposed route and the draft environmental assessment totally forget about reducing noise. In fact, the DEA recommends a plan that puts the most noise over the most people at the minimum altitudes. The F.A.A. totally rejects options that would put the flight path over Lake Washington and reduce noise for almost seventy thousand people. The F.A.A. is now in a lawsuit with the Seattle Community Council Federation on account of its failure to prepare an environmental impact statement in adopting the four post plan, which routed jets from Puget Sound to North Seattle and the central corridor of Seattle. Placing 42 aircraft per day at the outset - -- up to 69 in a few years thereafter - -- on a new centerline a mile east is also a new routing. The National Environmental Policy Act, the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the F.A.A.'s "Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts" (Manual # 1050.1D) require a full analysis the environmental impact of all the alternatives. The DEA makes a cursory analysis of the recommended alternative that stops at the limits of the 65 Ldn zone. Its analysis is insufficient. North East Seattle is a "noise sensitive area" and, a new flight path a mile east of the centerline of the current flight path effectively widens the flight track. An environmental, impact statement is needed in order that the all options be fully studied, their impacts stated, the public given a hearing, and the decision - makers be fully informed. ' The F.A.A. rejects the over - the -water alternatives at p. 3.4 by stating that "it would not satisfy the Port's objectives in maintaining existing flight tracks." The F.A.A. has an undelegateable duty under the National Environmental Policy Act to present and evaluate alternatives, including the no action alternative. It can not evade that responsibility by conferring a veto upon another body. In this case, a port commissioner stated that the alternatives had never been presented to the commission; its consideration of the program consisted of general principles only and that it was not informed that the statement of objectives would preclude consideration of the over - the -water alternatives. The F.A.A.'s recommended route makes aircraft go out of their way in order to go over North East Seattle and Central Seattle rather than taking the most direct, straight line route. Aircraft from the southeast, the east, and the northeast could save at least 1.25 miles per flight by angling southwesterly over Lake Washington. Efficiency and ecology both favor an over -the -water route. During the mediation meetings, F.A.A. officials and the airline pilots often said that greater separation in flight paths produces greater safety. The routing over Lake Washington provides a greater separation between aircraft than the parallel routing in the recommended alternative. Moreover, should a collision occur, the F.A.A.'s parallel routing guarantees ,a disaster to the people living below at least as great as the Kenner crash because the population densities in Seattle are much higher. The proposed M.L.S. program, as implemented by the recommended route, would demonstrate to the Congress and to the citizenry that the F.A.A. is unwilling to make use of the potential of the new technology for reducing noise exposure. As the public learns that its only use in the U.S. would be to move more planes, more quickly, over more people, the public will protest its installation at other airports and insist on delaying its implementation until the F.A.A. develops a commitment to carrying out the goals and policies of the National Environmental Policy Act and to making use of the potentials of the M.L.S. system for reducing adverse environmental impact. Please send to me at the addhess above a copy of your final environmental document. Yours very truly Jor Bader 7, I ALEUTIAN AIRWAYS, INC. reAP- . SHEMYA';� . - ADAK BERING SE.A t. . ,. r • PRIS1lOr ISLA 'r� February 5, 1992 • ;IKO;SK1 • 4..i' OR: HEMEN SAND POIN i .4. c' r ,r Sarah P. Dalton, Acting Supervisor,Wash. Sect. U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S. W. 'Renton, Washington 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Daltons Thank you for including Reeve Aleutian Airways in your DEA review. As of this writing RAA does not have any future plans regarding the installation of a Microwave Instrument Landing System; therefore we do not have comments or requests at this time. Sincerely, Reeve Aleutian Ai ways, Victor L. Fondy Vice President Operations . 4700 W. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RD. • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 -1091 1. t3 CITY OF Nno Fr Yr 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH • FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 Sarah P. Dalton, Acting Supervisor U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98055 -4056 February 24, 1992 Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for the MLS Demonstration Program at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Dear Ms. Dalton: The City of Federal Way has reviewed the above - referenced draft environmental assessment (DEA). Overall, the City supports efforts to improve efficiency and safety of landing aircraft. However, the City does not support any system enhancements or improvements which increases the current operating capacity of the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. The DEA indicates that there is no relationship between the proposed MLS demonstration project and an increase in aircraft operations. As indicated on page 2.1 of the DEA, the purpose of the microwave landing system (MLS) is to "increase the efficiency of airport operations ". The air quality analysis on page 5.19 indicates that "the number of aircraft operations will not increase due to this project ". These statements were further confirmed by you in a telephone conversation with Greg Fewins, Senior Environmental Planner with the Department of Community Development, on February 12, 1992. Overall, the DEA analysis of impacts to south King County communities and the likelihood of increased aircraft operations resulting from the MLS demonstration project is nonexistent. Impacts from this demonstration project are focused on areas located only north of Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. These conclusions conflict with operational activity analysis provided in the DEA. Page 5.5 of the DEA forecasts that in 1993 there will be 382,600 operations, and 407,000 operations in 1998. Page 5.5 of the DEA indicates that "this project will not increase or decrease the air traffic at SEA ". As indicated in the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee's (PSATC) draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the proposed Flight Plan project, Seattle- Tacoma International Airport has a current capacity of 380,000 aircraft operations. Therefore, without significant system improvements, Seattle- Tacoma International Airport does not have sufficient capacity to handle aircraft operations which the DEA forecasts based on the proposed MLS demonstration project. Ms. Sarah P. Dalton February 20, 1992 Page 2 Based on the preferred alternative outlined in the PSATC DEIS, improvements at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport are not scheduled until the year 2000. As with most communities surrounding Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, the City of Federal Way is opposing implementation of any improvements which would increase operating capacity of the Airport. There is inadequate analysis of the relationship between the proposed MLS demonstration project and Port of Seattle, and FAA actions such as the proposed Flight Plan, and the four post plan. It is particularly critical for us to understand the potential effect that the MLS project will have on these other actions which directly and adversely impact the City of Federal Way. Analysis and conclusions of the DEA are contradictory and conflict with operational and capacity analysis provided by the PSATC DEIS for the proposed Flight Plan project. Based on our assessment of these environmental analysis, it is apparent that increased aircraft operations are dependent on installation of the proposed MLS demonstration project. Therefore, increased adverse environmental impact to the Federal Way community will result from the proposed project. An analysis of the relationship between the MLS demonstration project, increased aircraft operations, and potential adverse environmental impacts on the City of Federal Way must be disclosed and evaluated in the DEA. Last, each of these air transportation issues are of statewide significance and concern. In recognition of these concerns, the Washington State Legislature established an air transportation committee to address air transportation issues. The proposed MLS demonstration project is a program which should be considered by the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEA. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Greg Fewins, Senior Environmental Planner, at 661 -4108. c: ity Manager for of Co City Council 7. Brent McFall, City Manager Greg Fewins, Senior Environmental Planner • Carolyn Lake, Acting City Attorney dl:mlidea.wp February 24, 1992 M.L.S. Project F.A.A. District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 RE: M.L.S. comment Dear project director: The great philosopher, John Stuart Mill, wrote that society should seek to do the greatest good for the greatest' number. The F.A.A. proposal for routing aircraft under the M.L.S. system makes the most misery for the largest mass. It would put the flight path to Sea -Tac down the middle of Seattle directly over where most people live. It should go over Lake Washington where nobody lives. If all the F.A.A. wants to show is that new technology can move more airplanes more quickly, it should go to a major hub airport. Seattle is the place to show that the system can provide relief from noise. Put the flight path over Lake Washington. Do it right or not at all. 1 to Yours truly ty2.tp '1 %A luCa y 10;1992 4260 Shoreclub Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sarah P. Dalton Federal Aviation Administarion Acting Supervisor, Washington Section Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Und Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: YYO.Y Woo • . • .... • • • As you requested, I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for a proposed installation of two Microwave' Landing Systems at ,Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Comments follow. There is no indication of the noise impact in the vicinity of North Mercer Island, nor how it might vary from the present noise level, or the noise level of years gone by. Despite the table to the contrary the noise level at present is very significant and interferes with sleep, even in a closed room. The impact of increased traffic brought about by the landing system is not addressed in the vicinity of North Mercer Island. The noise of the Southern tracks across Mercer Island is not addressed either. Although the number of airplanes envisioned seem low, there are no promises made. This impact needs to be addressed and quantified. Sincerely, coow, /I uy-N-- David Myerson February 24, 1992 4260 Shoreclub Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sarah P. Dalton Federal Aviation Administarion Acting Supervisor, Washington Section Seattle Airports. District Office 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: Please send me a copy of the final Environmental Assessment for the installation of two Microwave Landing Systems at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. Thank you. Sincerely, David Myer'son 6-4 RAVENNA- BRYANT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 15264, Wedgwood Station Seattle, Wa. 98115 Sarah P. Dalton Acting Supervisor, Washington Section U.S. Department of Transportation Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA. 98055 -4056 RE; Draft Environmental Assessment for MLS Landing System at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Dear Ms. Dalton: February 24, 1992 This letter responds to your request for comment on your draft environmental assessment for the MLS Demonstration Program at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. Our community association is an organization of residents in North East Seattle living in the neighborhood bounded by 15th Avenue N.E., Lake City Way N.E., N.E. 85th Street, Ravenna Avenue N.E., 25th Avenue N.E., N.E. 75th St., 35th Avenue N.E., N.E. 65th St., 42nd Avenue N.E., the Burke- Gilman trail, Ravenna Place N.E., and Ravenna Park. The boundaries encompass about 7,000 homes, small businesses, schools, and non - profit organizations. Membership is open to anyone who resides or works in the neighborhood. Community meetings are held semi - annually and special meetings are held when the need arises. Our community is covered by a solid black line on Port of Seattle flight tracks for twelve hours or more. It is bisected by the ILS flight track. The proposed flight track will cut another one through our neighborhood. The dual flight tracks will make a swath a mile wide with in- coming aircraft approaching in parallel paths on both sides. The centerline of the new flight track willscarcely be a short block away from Bryant Elementary School; two short blocks from Nathan Eckstein Middle School; and from appearances on the north of Figure 3, beside Nathan Hale High School. The proposed flight track crosses 1980 census tracts that contain 67,775 more people than Option 2. Option 2 doubles the minimum distance from the aircraft to the nearest homes for most of its course. Since noise varies inversely with the square of the distance from the source, Option 2 cuts in half the noise received by the nearest residence and reduces the noise even more to people further away. In its December 17, 1987 Report, the Port /King County Joint Committee on Aircraft Overflights gave strong support to installing and using a microwave landing system in order to direct aircraft safely over the water and away from residential areas. Section IV of the Port's Noise Mediation document recommended that the F.A.A. designate Sea -Tac as a demonstration project for the microwave landing system because it "offers possibilities for noise relief measures ", especially, but not exclusively in the Duwamish /Elliott Bay corridor. Option 2 demonstrates these capabilities of the MLS system. The recommended alternative takes advantage of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Aircraft Overflights and of the Mediation document in order to speed up the flow of aircraft without providing the relief that prompted the recommendations for the MLS demonstration program and provided the citizen support. Implementing the recommended alternative will cost the F.A.A. public support for the MLS program in our community, in other affected communities, and as citizens in other cities learn about the Seattle experience, it will affect their willingness to support installation of such a system there. Yours very truly President. February 27, 1992 Ms. Sarah P. Dalton Acting Supervisor Washington Section, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: (1_:„V The Medina City Council has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) fog the MLS demonstration program at SeaTac. The City Council has concluded that the DEA does not adequately evaluate the noise impact of shifting incoming flights approximately one mile east of their present location over Capitol Hill. As it is now, the noise from incoming planes is heard across Lake Washington and in Medina. Moving a significant portion of those flights eastward by 4400 feet will dramatically increase the noise over the lake and in our City. Lake Washington is a relatively quiet body of water surrounded by residential areas with a low ambient noise level. The proposed FAA action will have a major impact on this area and should he subject to a complete environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to any consideration. The need for an EIS is heightened by the FAA's intent to use the proposed MLS routes 24 hours a day. Microwave landing system technology offers an opportunity to route planes over noise insensitive areas. The only major corridor in and out of SeaTac that qualifies in this regard is the Duwamish industrial corridor. This was the major corridor for planes in and out of SeaTac until the past few years. It is used relatively little now for arrivals. MLS technology offers an opportunity to keep planes in that corridor and improve the quality of life of citizens throughout the greater Seattle area. 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD - POST OFFICE BOX 144 - MEDINA. WA 98039 -0144 TELEPHONE 206 -454 -9222 • FAX 454-8490 • POLICE 454-1332 r For these reasons, the Medina City Council strongly opposes the MLS demonstration program as it is currently proposed in the DEA. At a minimum, an environmental impact statement should be filed. Preferably, the MLS technology should be used to re_d_u_cs. noise over. Medina and other residential areas in and around Seattle. Sincerely, Thomas W. Hull Mayor Pro Tern CC: City Council Dr. Robert H. Rudolph, ECAAN . 7 7_ ROBERT.:L. SOLOMON --tri tim 159. ..ir) 7 3 Li 6-r u•)/4- 9 NOS- VLA L; , : s . 62-c-61-le 06-WAica4/~t- C C. Pori 0 -•C ctakik • 1•N 3 fidovnkett. • ),' PA& / -Nitt-F2-1-2..:().4 Oiie, AWN' A iv cc tiEW PU10/7 PAili .0?0P0 iC) Cu l- • � . 477'n'7. . " ! ) O M' F f ,. N /0 A-PPitatA-L- 6! 1 A.M-5 arr.e2: :,:'. gri417-16, 04,140 afir-1,01, 70 Itra .;ifiy: ie ':rtP Ada Ai--O p1 ? 1 614-r-e a)/ V rdieP Lare.E.'.._ W.- lanee--W ir U540 ..:Me6;., alitrtftz/lanzi ce....21.167- ' trixt0 0,°7703. Ivy P �•r A. /1-4-3 vt2Fegovo' OPT-10 0 a. � .e P, O2 e e- au . /F 7t14515j, 1 a) . 70 MiL,Fei2,ce. cfr7.017t6 4-0014061ta,c0X)cer. Federal Aviation Administration Attention:Sarah P. Dalton, M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind.Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 February 27, 1992 Dear Sarah Dalton, As a residents of Northeast Seattle, we have experienced a dramatic increase in the amount of aircraft noise over the last several years. Concerning the F.A.A. proposal to send jets over 35th Av NE, We strongly urge you to support alternative routes, such as Option 2 over Lake Washington. While recognizing the importance of consistency as a safety consideration, we must not lose track of the importance of ;maintaining one's sanity. We do indeed have the human need and. constitutional right of tranquility, which is worth the economic considerations of training pilots to us the Lake Washington approach in a safe manner. Sincerely, £ `f v Kenneth and Cathy Shiovitz 7012 28th Av NE Seattle, WA 98115 cc: Port of Seattle Commission Congressman Jim McDermott Martha Means gri Federal Aviation Administration Attn. Sarah P. Dalton M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 980.55 -4056 Dear Sirs or Mesdames: February 29, 1992 I write to strongly support Option 2 for the new flight track for jets approaching SeaTac from the north- -i.e., the option that has the easterly flight track over Lake Washington rather than 35th Ave. NE. A flight track over 35th Ave. would greatly increase the aircraft noise to which citizens in my area are subject, which is already outrageous. If a third runway is established and as many as 300 planes fly over 35th Ave. NE each day - -as has been projected- -life in Wedgewood and adjacent regions of the city will simply be unbearable. ely your ( /6 Robert C. Coburn Copies to: Port of Seattle Commission Congressman Jim McDermott ♦ � r Leschi Improvement Council P.O. B01122391 Seattle, Washington 98122 March 2, 1992 Sarah P. Dalton, Acting Supervisor Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: ir' i^ \ ^�_ �� J The Leschi Improvement Council representing the Leschi neighborhood of Seattle has the following comments on the MLS Demonstration Program Proposed for Sea Tac Airport: 1) The Leschi community, along with several other neighborhoods of central Seattle are presently overburdened by the noise and airborne pollutants generated by commercial aircraft. To establish a second arrival corridor directly over those communities would only add to an already unfair burden. This situation could be easily avoided by adopting either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Either of the those alternatives, especially Alternative 3, would impact far fewer people than would your current preferred alternative. 2) Alternative 3 would also allow for a straight line approach by instrument navigation up until the Fly Visual segment is reached. This would allow arriving aircraft to approach while making fewer maneuvers or adjustments in their approach patterns, resulting in greater safety and efficiency, the primary goals of implementing a new approach pattern. 3) To dismiss this alternative for the simple reason that it differs from the existing pattern is unacceptable. The creation of a drastically different flight pattern did not stop implementation of Four Post, a change which has resulted in adverse impact for many Seattle residents. 4) Every major change in the routing of local air traffic which has been made in the past ten years has resulted in more flight patterns going directly over central Seattle. Not only is this the most populated area in the Puget Sound region, but it also has the largest number of minority citizens to be found in the area. It seems that this fact and the recent actions of the FAA and Port of Seattle are not coincidental. To continually target minority groups or other people who traditionally possess less political clout for these adverse changes is callous at best and outright racist at worst. 5) Your list of individuals who have been invited to comment on your proposed actions includes very few people from the areas most drastically affected by those actions. At the same time, it seems virtually every airline operator using Sea Tac has been invited to comment. This selection will not result in the numbers of comments truly representative of the concern of the affected communities. 6) Why was there no public hearing on this proposal? This issue has implications as far reaching as the proposal to install a third runway at Sea Tac airport. In fact, the timing of this proposal has allowed the FAA to use the third runway issue as an effective smoke screen for allowing this proposal to pass virtually unnoticed. There should be at least one public hearing on this matter. LIC appreciates this opportunity to comment of the actions proposed by the FAA. This same opportunity should have been given to all in the affected areas. LIC formally requests an extension of the public comment period to allow for that fair opportunity to be presented. ncerely, James C. -• atd, LIC Jet o'se Committee cc: N. Rice - Mayor, City of Seattle J. Street - Seattle City Council M "rch 4, 1992 Federal Aviation Administration Attn. Sarah P. Dalton M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: an n nvsnwcy;anrctainy,�.� I am writing to let you know that I strongly support the MLS Option 2 - -the option that has the easterly track over Lake Washington rather than 35th Ave. NE - -for the new flight track for jets approaching SeaTac from the north. The other proposal would make the lives of the people in my part of the city unbearable. We already have a serious noise problem with the existing TLS track centered on 17th Ave. NE. To add an additional track centered on 35th Ave. NE is unthinkable. The citizens of Seattle should not be asked to bear such a noise level. cc: Port of Seattle Commission Congressman Jim McDermott Mayor Norm Rice 1:21 Sincerely, Martha L. Means Minnie O. Brasher 846 So. 136th Seattle., Washington 98168 March 4, 1992 Ms. Sarah P. Dalton Seattle Metropolitan Region Planning Officer 1601 Lind Avenue, • S.W. Renton, Washington 98055 -4056 I -) 114# j:)1, � A Micro -Wave Landing System (MLS) would establish a flight path change inside the 3,000ft ceiling. Ms. Dalton you said MLS would be used for commuter aircraft only (they do not need a flight path change) and for landing only. The fact remains the flight path would be established and the potential is there for departing and landing jets. MLS has been demonstrated at Philadelphia International Airport, '.c:ago's Midway Airport and New York's Kennedy International Airport. 'one of these Airport's have accepted MLS. ?e do not want our community used as a means of getting a flight path change, or as an experiment for micro -wave beams. We are totally against MLS. Sincerely (72.2- Minnie O. Brasher March 6, 1992 Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports Distri;tOffice 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for proposed installation of a Microwave Landing System at Sea -Tac Airport First, may I request a copy of the final Environmental Assessment. As I understand the purpose of the MLS Demonstration Program, it is to demon- strate the capabilities of this relatively new technology. The curved flight path of the traditional approach to Sea -Tac Airport during the past 20 years (Elliott Bay, Duwamish industrial area) for south flow provides See, -Tao the opportunity for a practical application of the MLS technology. Rather than being unable to use the traditional curved approach to Sea -Tac during poor visibility, the MLS demonstration project will enable continued use of this . flight path. The need for the adverse impacts (e.g., noise and pollution from combustion products) along the length of Seattle, as in the 4 -post plan, will be obviated. Aircraft noise and pollution is part of the marked deterioration of the "liveability" of Seattle during the past two years. In addition to the above approach to Sea -Tac from the Northwest over Elliott Bay, a compromise between Options 2 and 3 of the DEA will enable aircraft to approach the second existing runway from the northeast and predominantly over water, Lake Washington, not over the greatest possible number of residences as in the 4 -post plan. The reason given in the DEA of dismissing Options 2 and 3 out of hand because they "deviated significantly from existing traffic patterns" is comic since two years ago the Port had no such concerns when they made the huge change known as the 4 -post plan. In summary, the final EA needs to address the appropriateness of using the MLS Demonstration Program to enable use of the traditional curved approach path over Elliott Bay and the Duwamish industrial area. Sincerely, . Za kt/ Angela B. gne 8549 Lafo a Ave., N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 Tel: (206) 523 -5506 5 March 1992 • Sarah Dalton FAA, Seattle Airport District Office 1601 Lind Ave., S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 My first question is WHY? Why an Environmental Assessment? You are using commuter planes, i.e. "prop jobs" only, to judge noise impact on communities. Using up to eight flights a day. The Overflight Committee II and the Noise Mediation Committee were wooed towards the MLS with promises of curved departures and approaches. To quote the Sea -Tac Forum published by the Port of Seattle, March 1992 edition: "Unlike an MLS, the ILS only allows straight -in approaches and cannot accommodate the quieter, steep- angled approaches commuter aircraft are capable of with an MLS." And yet all you are using are nothing more than "bore- sight" approaches, explaining that the technology for curved approaches hasn't been developed as yet. a member of the Overflight Committee and a participant of .he Mediation process we were tr ng jets not props. Now _eau are talking props. The proposed arrival routes in this test are for props...or are they? Will jets be using the new routes? You cannot very well use jets can you, because jet planes do not have the necessary equipment installed. Why aren't departure routes being tested? That's right, you can't test the curved routes because the technology hasn't been developed. We have "bore- sight" approaches with a sidestep maneuver. It's called an ILS. Again WHY an EA for a new straight -in approach for commuter aircraft? At the special FAA briefing on 20 February 1992 I asked two questions: (1) The safety of the electronic emissions of the MLS landing system and (2) What was the date of the FAA Order 3910.3A. Response: (1) Safer than your house and (2) I don't know. If there is one thing that I hate is trite and off hand responses. The British and European communities have an on- going study on electromagnetic radiation and physiological effects since 1989. See article titled "The Killing Fields" and subsequent articles published in Electronics and Wireless World Magazine. Page 2 Please tell me why you are not using curved approaches as discussed in past mediation meetings? Why are you not considering jet noise? Why are you using arrivals and not including departures in your test? The physiological and biological impact of electronic emissions needs to be seriously evaluated using findings of both international and domestic studies. Sincerely, (Mrs.) Georgianne Ray P. 0 .' Box 68245 Seattle, WA 98168 -0245 537 33rd. Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98144 March 8, 1992 Sarah Dalton, M.L.S.Project Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports Office 1601 Lind Avenue SW Renton WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: I have just seen a copy of the Draft EIS for the M.L.S. Project and wish to tell you not only how appalled I am but how badly advised I believe this project to be in terms of the options selected. My first question is why this project at all? Surely if this equipment did not work it would not already be being installed in planes. Why the necessity for a demonstration project in Seattle? We already know that we have problems here with weather and traffic volumes; a controversy over those problems and possible solutions is heating up the community and even the Washington Legislature, which as I am sure you know has passed a bill enjoining delay of the third runway question until at least 1994 to allow coordination with regional planning. If the FAA wants to make sure that the indignation of the citizens remains at fever pitch while regional planning takes place, the M.L.S. plan is a good way to do that. Adding even one more plane to the noise levels over this part of the city, particularly during those times when we could previously count on a little relief, is adding insult to an already considerable injury. And aren't the aircraft to be included in the demonstration project private and small commercial aircraft rather than large commercial carriers or freight carriers? Who benefits from not having a 28- minute delay in landing, and do their 28 minutes balance out the comfort and the property values of the rest of us? Why did the Port and the FAA not choose Option 1'? The side -step maneuver is also required for Option 7, which is a part of the solution they did choose. Saying that Option 1 is out because of the side -step is not sensible to me. Why not Option 3? True, Bill Gates and some other rich people would have an increased assault on their ears. The Port and the FAA could then lobby these influential citizens to join the rest of us in support of the satellite airport proposals. A scenario appears here, to some of us at least, that smacks of more of the same kind of misrepresentation and outright dishonesty that have graced the actions of the Port and the FAA on this issue from the beginning. You figure that you already have a lot of people mad at you. According to the table in appendix E of the draft, p.17, you think you know how mad we will get and how likely we are to take action (and that is a cute little item to append to the report, by the way.) You figure you can take that heat. Therefore, why get more people mad at you, especially rich people? This is quite typical bureaucratic thinking, but it leaves unanswered the questions of whom you ultimately serve. It isn't supposed to be merely the commercial interests and the rich; .3y- it is supposed to be the entire body of the citizenry. Officials who forget that too blatantly and for too long may find out that the citizens themselves remember, and that we remember what to do about it. Your appendix B on delay savings makes the point that you will be doing this little exercise for the proposed savings of up to $2.55 million a year by 1998. Leaving out that other solutions, such as use of an existing satellite facility, may make the calculations meaningless by then, what about the effect on property values in the area to be impacted? One can equally well project a significant decrease in those values -- or a lack on increase -- that dwarfs the $2.55 million. The area impacted is not, after all, a bunch of slum neighborhoods. People who buy property in this area can afford to make housing decisions based on noise levels. They make them now by going elsewhere. What will they do when you increase the noise, and what about the values of the residents' property? As for the figures on noise levels, they are simply not credible, because the FAA's previous figures are not credible. The pilots of the aircraft who use the corridor now are notorious for straying from flight paths and tlying lower than they are supposed to, and complaints about them vanish into thin air without any useful response (the complaint hotline is a bad joke, and the Port people know it). There is no way the Port and the FAA can present this project and not expect the affected citizens to object to it, simply because it makes no sense in the first place and requires us to trust once again the people who have made careers out of misleading the public. I find the Port's description of the project in its newsletter and the lack of timely and wide distribution of the draft EIS significant in that they represent one more attempt to .sneak something by the people who will be affected by the problem without generating the kind of scrutiny the idea deserves. No sensible citizen denies that the problems of aircraft noise and traffic levels are complex ones requiring compromise solutions. This kind of sneak attack by the Port and the FAA does not add to the ease whereby such problems might be dealt with by all of us. And we are all supposed to be involved, though I realize the bureaucrats wish it wasn't so. I was involved in the previous citizens' exercise in route planning and know whereof I speak. One more point: I find a curious silence in all the debates over air traffic about the very real possibility that advances in communications technology may actually cause a decrease at least in passenger traffic in the next decade, as businesspeople find it more convenient to convene by electronic means than by physical ones. I realize that it is in anyone's interests to assume that his or her empire can only get larger. But suppose it shrinks? Has anyone in the FAA or at the Port given the matter any thought at all? Sincerely, Carole G. Stock cc: Paige Miller L Sara P Dalton Seattle. Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton Wa 98055-4056 Dear Ms Dalton: 4916 Purdue Ave N 4^ `i,: Seattle .WA 9810:5 , c;. March 1992 p e- /7 \E, I am submitting these comments: on the MLS F'ropos,al.on behalf of myself, the Hawthorne Hills Community Club and my: participation in the Aircraft Noise broup> Sincerely, Arden W. Forrey Comment of the Draft Environmental Assessment for the MLS Demonstration Program at Seattle Tacoma international Airport of January 1992 by Arden W. Farrey Section 1 - Introduction The second paragraph of this section focusses on the FAA work group as being the reduction of congestion a notes the representation form the FAA, airlines and F' but not any communities or cities in the surrounding omission leads to the primary focus in Section 2 "Ne of emphasizing the efficiency of airport operations. objective is: "Minimizing Noise Impacts on the Com section then summarizes the recommendations pointed a target. It was the opinion of the community represe mediation, and also subsequently, that MLS install accelerated, from their perspective, in order to deal mitigation for the region as a whole and surrounding specific while realizing that efficiency of airport o also be addressed. The FAA Documents "netting Rea "MLS Indoctrination Handbook" clearly point out intended to be used for minimizing noise effects. capabilities of the ground installation described in the EH are not developed in the context of noise Seattle- Tacoma. This should be stated here and -Furth Section 2. Section 2 - Need and Purpose Up front THE major objective of mediation was the t- noise abatement aircraft route control. The comm this should be stated as a ca -equal objective to efficiency of airport operations and an entire Opp the strategies of using the full potential of th capabilities of MLS. This Appendix should not accept the preferences of the Port of Seattle but should criteria, judgements made and the technical +acts judgements, particularly in the context of the strategies. If this is not done, the understanding in helping the community accept and help manage the traffic AT ALL AIRPORTS will suffer especially sinc was recommended during mediation by the community c purpose based upon the reports of its technical pote tial. The +act that ILS (768 sites) will be technically phased out by 1196 and replaced by 1250 civilian (900 by 1995) and over 60) military fixed and mobile ground stations in the United St-tes alone and purpose of the d delays. It rt o+ Seattle region. This d and Purpose" (Another major unities ". lhis theefticiency tatives during tion was to be with the noise communities in erations must y for MLS" and that MLS was 'Ihe technical Section 1 of mitigation at r developed in se of MLS in nity feels that the increase in ndi >; devoted to route control at face value state fully the support htose route control + MLS as a tool burdens of air the use of MLS ucuses for this 2,ft substantially more world -wide creates a perspective on the 19' installation of MLS at Seattle Tacoma. The Seattle installation appears to be in the middle of the installations rather than a leading edge demonstration. the history of this program in terms of the number of sites installed by year since 1981 should be shown in a table and then a list of sites given in the Apeendices noting the capabilities (i.e. segmented approach, curved approach, basic, etc) of the sites and their utilization (capacity enhancement, noise abtement, etc) given. This functional data is surely available to the FHA and is, and will continue to be, sought by the community in order to understand how MLS can and does benefit this community. Only then should the proposed actions be described in terms not only of the immediate benefit but also in terms of the long term posture cf the airport as it is currently configured, with options to du= cuss its possible benefits if some of the current expansion proposals go forward. The proposed actions to develop instrument approach porocedures should describe a phased schedule of the entire range of procedures, including those developed +or noise abatement and identifying the capabilities to be tested that lead to maximum noise abatement use of the tec:hnulogy. The incentives and rewards to the air carriers of installing cockpit equipment must be described in addition to tht .burdens - noting the i mmennt phase out of 1LS technology internationally i n favor of MLS. this offers the ability to operate at many national and international airports in addition to Sea-'lac. The alternatives should he depicted in terms of this technical factors. Section 3 - Alternatives The roting alternatives must be fully explained since the rejection of a given alternative because of the preference of the Fort of Seattle does nothing to explain the true facts to all user=_. There must be +LI11 tr=c:hnical justification, if the reason is to be fully beleived and accepted. !f, at a future time an alternative will be recommended because_ of improvements then the estimated time that it will be available must stated and the organizational commitments to recommending that alternative must be fully supported by facts. believability is important and rests upon the trust of the hearer in the statements of the speaker. Such tra.ust is worth money, if all value must be expressed in monetary measures, because non - believability results in missed opportunities and these are worth money indirectily if not directly. lhe Ft-'s willingness to accept alternatives, independent of the wishes of the Fort, must be stated if such is the case. The community believes that MLS can support Option 1, with segmented approaches, or Option 6 in approiaches tor the West hunway (la.) and it believes that MLS can suppoort Option 2 or Option 6 on tracks from the East, also with segments, in order to foster noise ab.a.ternent. These are all within the capabilities o+ the equipment given an explicit objective to do so, noted above. the selection of _alternatives from the community perspective, I'm sure you recognize, is not from the perspective •:e of '.the convenience of airport operations Lu'I_ from the p.::r .prcti .,_•e of the implied acceptance of the community area;_, ,:.eve..- Nhich the aircraft fly. 'lheretore the preferred .•.?.I_er n.a.tiv=s, should be fully supported by technical +acts and tied to the noise abatement strategies for this technology. Section 4 - The'Affected Environment Thc- affected environment extends much further North than depicted. It is clear that the MLS around equipment does not exert a measur ab 1 e impact outside airport property but the impact is on the ai.r•:raft it controls: H much more detailed descrition of this _.,'.'ircinment must be presented, recognizing the the full aircraft :'rit.rca space AND the impact of other airports and their air traffic r result of MLS control to Seattle Tacoma. I he isolation of these effests h been a major deficiency of current assessment ;r: ocv._I!..res. Only when this scope is fully depicted will the `._'n't i55uticn of MLS be visble to the community as a +actor in J=ve.ihpiri; an acceptable implementation plan. Section 5 - Environmental. Consequences Ih !-erms of the strategic plan for use of MLS to abate noise, the r,c'i s= c int ours should to presented with the known deficiencies of the integrated Noise Model (INM) and its use of Annual UNL metrics clearly offset by other- data from that model using the alternatives (suitably modified and modeled as ndted above). Contours should be e. ;tended to 50 GE.A and +or the mociifed alternatives, as well as lime ar`i'd SEL contours to Show the noise reduction effects of MLS approach tracks. It is clear that spome alternatives to the "boresight" current ILS or Proposed MLS 16L tracks over the heart of the City of Seattle will .eventually have to be addressed. The advanced capabi 1 ti yes of MLS make this possible. !bus the . 40 e•;- f i. r•_►nment.= ]. consequences of these alternatives, in terms o+ solid dat,' from INM, should be presented. Included should be the w./ that the historic Noise Abatement Procedure would be accommodated) by MLS and the INM data to support that profile should Lo presented. Appendix f% This Appendix should describe the major point in the two FHA MLS documents, namely, that three major scanning beams are involved in MLS rather than the single static beam in 1LS. this makes possible fixation of an aircraft in range, azmuth and elevation dynamically using the ground signal. The advanced direction capabilities of MLS result from the complexity of aircraft instrumentation, namely that computer is needed to process the raw signals to provide directions to maneuver the aircraft. "[his capability should be described since its presence controls which aircraft can follow segmented or curved paths. Since cost to aircraft operators is a factor in understanding what is possible suggests the incentives to be offered. Appendix S Based upon noise mitigation and abatement as a co -equal objective, the estimated changes in land value, public acceptance and other factors should also be described, if community acceptance tor their benefit is to be acheived. Appendix F' The Tables presentred should categorize both commuter and jet aircraft in terms of pathway alternatives +or which they would be eligible and their noise signature index. George & Vicki Rinehart 19453.4th PI. SW Seattle, WA 98166 s��/ r / 1 4?-7,7.J-4 V ^� peuL4-C' y/' e-F` e6 `xn. • zt, 4 • Viz. ' .. 1de ,A—x-e--zs 1de &IA 4z, J o612-4-64't--- "AA-44-4i PoLesi • J 'J ° j- ��-- 4RA.4.1 3 are) 570/7. )itA) a-,ti e. - two #eeM e‘A.t. • r4ieL■ /64a1 v+ ), "-e-etA=e€4. /4 . f'33� • 1.44 William F. Ward 3464 East Alder Street Seattle, WA 98122 -6510 (206) 328 -9338 (E2) March 10, 1992 Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Sarah P. Dalton, M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports Office 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms Dalton: Steps must be taken soon to reduce the noise from Sea -Tac airplane traffic over Leschi, Madrona and Mt. Baker districts of Seattle. I'm a native of these neighborhoods. My family has owned the house at the above Leschi address since 1903. I was born here in 1920 and grew up here. When I looked out of my bed- room window many years ago Icould see a . feriyboat- crossing the lake to Medina, and we rode the Yesler cablecar to town. Looking out the same window today I see the 1 -90 bridge and the Yesler bus stops at my door. That's progress. But, of course, there was a price: a certain amount of ear and nose pollution. When I returned to Seattle after a stint in World War Two we landed at Boeing Field because there was no Sea -Tac. Since then we've made more progress. We now have a great airport with just about all the conveniences known to man. Again, there was a price for progress: terrible traffic, both on the ground and in the air, and pollution of the senses which is fast becoming unbearable. Now I read there are plans to use a new landing system which could send nearly 300 planes a day over my head. x-.45 William F. Ward 3464 East Alder Street Seattle, WA 98122 -6510 (206) 328 -9338 -2- To: Sarah P. Dalton (Continued) I used to be able to open my windows for some fresh air in nice weather. No more. Now in good weather the air traffic overhead is stepped up.So mdch for open windows. Is there no end to this abuse? We're not talking about an act of God here. We're talking about deliberate acts of officials with little or no thought of the consequences on the public. These actions can and must be moderated to save our nerves and sanity. Enough of this sort of progress. I think we deserve better treatment_ than this. What say you? Sincerely yours Wm. F. Ward �•4b Phyllis Hatfield Writer / Editor March 10, 1992 Sarah P. Dalton FAA Seattle Airports Office 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 „, 41 • Cl ePo. 1y I oppose the FAA's plan to route additional air traffic over Leschi, Mt Baker, and Madrona, an area already plagued by too many, too loud jets. My life is made miserable, day and night, by the 150 planes already flying over my home and office in Leschi. My nerves are shot and my work has suffered. It is difficult to write and edit books when one is constantly interrupted and made nervous by noise. There are other options open to you and the Port of Seattle for getting planes onto and off the ground. You do not need to have so many takeoffs and landings over residential neighborhoods. Do right, for once, not just what seems convenient. Sincerely, (P/hA/346/' P-x7f-cd4 906 33rd Avenue South • Seattle, WA 98144.206/325 -8189 -I-. 4-R- March 10, 1992 _.._ 4621 Lake Washington Blvd. S. Seattle, WA 98118 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Att: Sarah P. Dalton, M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports Office 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Paige Miller, President, Port Commission PORT OF SEATTLE P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Re: Proposed New Sea -Tac Landing Pattern I am angry and incredulous to learn that the F.A.A. has proposed and that Commissioners of the Port of Seattle have apparently approved a proposal to reroute air traffic over the residential area bordered by the Madrona and Lakewood districts of Seattle'. As a long time resident of the Lakewood neighborhood, I find this proposal an extremely offensive display of disregard for community values and amenities. Given that routes over water or industrial areas exist, surely your planners need to conduct a more careful benefit cost analysis of the proposed pattern. Both from the standpoint of noise disturbance and the potential risks of air hazards, the choice of such prime residential neighborhoods for flight patterns simply does not make economic sense. And as a Republican voter in a year when many are questioning the extent of government committment to and effectiveness in dealing with domestic issues at all levels, this action certainly does not help the cause. Please register my strong protest of this decision. Sincerely, John H. Powel, Jr. cc: Mayor Norm Rice, City of Seattle Seattle City Council Members King County Council Members Congressman Jim McDermott • w.hxz.m.xw.f,,..10 nwn. w.......1. /.s41.,7,0..1. M1.f0,41,1 ea4a3V'Ca'iH19..Kg. • WR'!7 M_ Cti7Sktfe it::N:.VZI79>77b':'Cl'PT STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mall Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000,-. • - March 10, 1992 C �M -• Ms. Sarah P. Dalton .=.� U.S. Federal Aviation Administration \. 1601 •Lind Avenue SWzw. ` Renton, WA 98055 -4056 ',,', Dear Ms. Dalton: We received the environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed installation of two Microwave Landing Systems at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. Enclosed are comments from the Washington State Department of Transportation. If you have any question, please call Mr. David Oberg at (206) 562 -4106. Sincerely, MVS: 92 -651 Enclosure cc: George A. Simms, DOT David Oberg, DOT M. Vernice Santee Environmental Review Section � Washington State �I/ Department of Transportation Transportation Budding KF•01 March 4, 1992 Olympia. Wash;ngton 9850.5201 (206) 753.6005 Ms. Barbara Ritchie NEPA Coordinator Washington State Department of Ecology'` ^' ." MS PV -11 Olympia, Washington 98504 EC. ?, MAR 0 6 1992 Dear Ms. Ritchie: Duane Berentson Secretary of Transpora: o^ RE: MLS Demonstration Program at Sea Tac International Airport Environmental Assessment Attached are comments received from the Washington State Department of Transportation's District 1 Office concerning the proposed MLS demonstration project at Sea Tac Airport. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact David Oberg at (206) 562 -4106, Scan 638 - 4106.. GAS:bdsB 159 (EN) Enclosure Sincerely, ORGE A. SIMMS Environmental Policy Manager cc: David Oberg, District 1, MS NB -82 122 •Ti °" State Department of Trartsportation owe. February 25, 1992 From Donald K. Nel SCAN 638 -4103 Intra - Departmental Communication NB -82, MS -122 Subject: MLS Demonstration Program at Sea -Tac International Airport Draft Environmental Assessment TO George Simms, KF -01 We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed Microwave Landing System (MLS) at Seattle- Tacoma Tnternational Airport as requested. The proposed project is part of the MLS Demonstration Program sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and would install two MLS systems providing two independent Instrument Approach Procedures to runway 16L at Sea -Tac Airport. Our comments on the DEA for this proposal are as follows: 1. The DEA focuses on the impacts to aircraft operations at Sea -Tac Airport, but does not address the, potential fc,:: improvements in ground transportation in the airport vicinity resulting from fewer delays in aircraft arrivals. During poor weather conditions, air traffic delays and congestion creates similar problems for the ground transportation system as well. People arriving at the airport to pick up incoming passengers or to catch a departing flight may experience increased congestion levels on airport access roads, in parking facilities, and at the passenger terminals due to delays in aircraft arrivals. The DEA should, therefore, include a discussion of this proposal's impacts on the airport's surface transportation system. 2. The proposed MLS installation will improve the efficiency of Sea -Tac Airport. With increasing growth in air travel demand from the Puget Sound Region, any improvement in facilities at Sea -Tac that reduces air traffic delays will be very beneficial. 3. There does not appear to be any negative impacts to the airport's air or surface transportation systems resulting from the proposed MLS installation. Construction of the MLS facilities will make air travel in the Puget Sound Region safer and more efficient during poor weather conditions. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. David Oberg of my staff at SCAN 638 -4106. DAO:em 53 /daoairpt 9-.51 DOT 700.008 (x) Rev 10189 Federal Aviation Administration Atten: Sarah Dalton, M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 March 15, 1992/.4 .: Dear Ms. Dalton, *C In the Fall of 1988, we purchased our home on 62nd Avenue just North of Ravena Park. We based our decision to buy on many factors. One of which was the rural feeling of all the trees in the Park and we also felt that the city noise was at a reasonable level. To our dismay, this was greatly altered about a year later when the FAA decided to re -route the jet traffic landing at Sea -tac airport. These huge jets now fly directly over our house and are most disturbing especially late at night and in the very early morning hours. We feel that our quality of life has been compromised as has the value of our property. We would like to go on record as requesting that the FAA proceed with Option 2 which is the flight path easterly over Lake Washington. If the 3rd carrier runway is constructed we could face the possibility of more than 300 planes using each track and flying over our home every day. I am sure that you can appreciate our concern and the concern of our neighbors, especially since this condition did not exist at the time we purchased our home. We chose not to buy a home anywhere near the airport and paid a premium for our location so that we would not be exposed to air traffic noise. I hope that our concerns will be considered by the FAA. Thank you. cc: Jim McDermott Port of Seattle. Commission 1.. 52. Sincerely, eN 1 'L,) CJW Y C oan W. Gottfried PATRICIA J. SPARKS, M.D., M.P.H. OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE AND CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY 1714 N.E. 62nd Street • Seattle, Washington 98115 • (206) 523 -7149 Federal Aviation Administration Atten: Sarah Dalton, M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton. • rpri. Ir- . VI.J i-EA11.11 March 15, 1992 t r In the Fall of 1988, we purchased our home on 62nd Avenue just North of Ravena Park. We based our decision to buy on many factors. One of which was the rural feeling of all the trees in the Park and we also felt that the city noise was at a reasonable level. To our dismay, this was greatly altered about a year later when the FAA decided to re -route the jet traffic landing at Sea -tac airport. These huge jets now fly directly over our house and are most disturbing especially late at night and in the very early morning hours. We feel that our quality of life has been compromised as has the value of our property. We would like to go on record as requesting that the FAA proceed with Option 2 which is the flight path easterly over Lake Washington. If the 3rd carrier runway is constructed we could face the possibility of more than 300 planes using each track and flying over our home every day. I am sure that you can appreciate our concern and the concern of our neighbors, especially since this condition did not exist at the time we purchased our home. We chose not to buy a home anywhere near the airport and paid a premium for our location so that we would not be exposed to air traffic noise. I hope that our concerns will be considered by the FAA. Thank you. cc: Jim McDermott Port of Seattle Commission Sin re , Patric a J. Sparks, M.D. Toxicology • Medical standards and systems • Independent medical evaluations • Consultation Federal Aviation Administration Attention: Sarah P. Dalton M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports Distric Office 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 March 14, 1992 Dear Ms. Dalton: Ah6\1 :. 3 It has come to my attention that the FAA is circulating a draft environmental assessment on its proposal to split the flight track for jets approaching SeaTac Airport from the north by establishing a new flight path. I urge you to please consider adopting the Option Two flight plan that would put the easterly flight track over Lake Washington rather than another one so close to where many of us live. The lake is a reasonable and good alternative. There is already plenty of noise from the jets that go by and this would prevent it from becoming significantly more so in the near future. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, // �.._ fancy ' eruch Area Residen( Ae and Business Owner STEVEN L. DUBINSKY 1755 NE Naomi Place Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 523 -2172 March 15, 1992 r• Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Attn: Sarah P. Dalton, MLS Project This letter is to express my concem over the ever - increasing jet noise in my neighborhood. I have lived in Ravenna for quite a number of years and over the past 3 or 4 have noticed a extremely disturbing increase in the frequency of jets flying low over my home heading south towards SeaTac. I now have come to understand that I live very nearly directly under the ILS. This never seemed to be an issue years ago, but with the continued increase of traffic and our typical weather patterns, it now seems that most planes coming to the airport fly directly over my home. It is an appalling situation which is very disheartening, obtrusive and definitely lessens the overall quality of life in an otherwise lovely residential neighborhood. Calling the noise hotline has very limited effectiveness. . Noise is one of the most intrusive forms of pollution and should be treated as such. The cavalier attitude of the FAA seems to honor the wishes and needs of the airlines (can't they fly without the ILS to follow at all times? Must the tower route the planes onto the ILS so far north of the airport? is this not a function of laziness and routine rather than of necessity ?) and passengers at the expense of those of us who live here and pay taxes and work and live in and make this city! I strongly encourage the further consideration of option 2 for the MLS system, which routes the air traffic further east over the lake rather than over all of the residential neighborhoods which are currenitly impacted by the constant din of jets heading south. The small number of high income residents of the waterfront property which rings the lake will undoubtedly be vocal and well - funded, but I encourage the consideration of citizens' concerns based on number of individuals impacted, not on per capita earnings. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to and hope for a quieter Ravenna ',1i' e future. Since e Dubinsky Resident /Taxpayer/Voter /Concerned Citizen cc: Port of Seattle Commission Congressman Jim McDermott David A. Waldschmidt 910 31st Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98144 March 16, 1992 Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Sarah Dalton, MLS Project Seattle Airports Office 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Gentlepersons: This letter is to register my opposition to the landing plan proposed by your agency in connection with the new microwave landing system planned for Sea -Tac Field. Implementation of the proposed plan will operate to carry up to 300 landings a day on cloudy days in a path directly over my neighborhood. I understand the inherent difficulties in the process and the "not in my -:ckyard" posture often taken by citizens impacted by agency decisions. .wever, it is clear in this case that the Port of Seattle Commissioners .,oLed to increase traffic flows over Leschi and Madrona simply because L.e did not want to upset residents of other neighborhoods not ...ccustomed to air traffic. This plan will diminish the quality of daily life in Leschi and the east Central Area of Seattle. Our neighborhoods already bear their fair E,hare of air traffic noise. What about spreading the noise nuisance among other areas of Seattle? What about landings over water which disturb fewer people ?. I strongly urge the F.A.A. and Port Commission to adopt a landing plan that is fair and not impose additional burden upon the Central Area simply because its residents are accustomed to air traffic noise. In my view, this plan is borne out of political convenience and another example of the poor to moderate income residents of our city being treated unequitably. Very truly yours, Geg4c 4141GAY _. David A. Waldschmidt March 16, 1992 1630 36th Ave. Seattle, WA 98122 Dear FAA (S.P. Dalton) and Port Commission (Paige Miller: [ am writing to you both as a concerned Madrona resident objecting to plans to have nearly 300 planes fly over our heads on a regular basis once the new microwave landing systm is in place at Sea -Tac: It appears that because things are bad now, it's ok for them to get worse while people who have not had planes overhead'ini the Central area will continue to be spared. Help be sure that Fair Share is implemented and consider the option of more planes coming in over water. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carol. M. Eastman Ms. Sarah P. Dalton M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports Office 1601 Lind Ave S.W. Renton, Wa. 98055 -4056 March 18,1992 Ms. Dalton, Restaurants 5-0 Our neighborhood is already greatly effected by aircraft noise during north flow (clear weather days /approximately 150 planes). Now, with this proposed microwave landing system we would have an additional 300+ planes in our area each day. By placing us in the environs of 450+ planes on fair weather days you are eroding the quality of life in this area by attempting to put this plan into effect. Our homes, schools, places of worship, parks, and meeting places will be made untenable by the constant, intrusive loud roar and vibration of aircraft. Not to mention the occasional filet dumping which we in effect end up breathing. What happened to the notion of fair share? And what about landing over water which disturbs fewer people? The Port commissioners approved the option of further impacting our neighborhoods; Leschi, Madrona, Mt. Baker, as well as eastern and center portions of the Central District. This is a bad decision. I would like to be kept apprised of what the F.A.A. plans to do about this situation, and be kept up to date on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this proposal. I remain, Always .1 t your D. iel J. Mitchell I "Papa Mitchelli" c : Ron Sims, • Mayor Norm Rice, Senator John L. O'Brien, Seattle City Council, Paige Miller Trattoria Mitchelli Angelina's Trattoria 84 Yesler Way 2311 California SW Pioneer Square West Seattle 623 -3883 932 -7311 Stel!a's Trattoria Bella Luna Trattoria 4500 9th Ave. NE 14053 Greenwood N University District At the City Limits 633 -1100 367 -LUNA Dear FAA and Sarah Dalton, Rather than write a long diatribe regarding the landings and takeoffs over the Leschi district where I live, I'll be short about it. It's inconceivable to me to have MORE air traffic directed over populated areas of the city. A better landing/ take -off pattern over Puget Sound deserves serious consideration, in my view, as the air traffic increases in this area. While I'm not a hard- boiled NIMBY about aircraft noise, it amazes me that the powers that be apparently are considering a plan that would annoy those of us who live in the traffic pattern even further. It's true, clear weather take -off days are seriously loud and the noise is very disruptive in Leschi. Sunday mornings in the summer sounds like an Air Force excercise around here. Forget sleeping, really. More planes? Please don't send any more over here. But, if you doubt what I'm saying, you are cordially invited to sit on my yard anytime and anyday at 7AM and watch and listen to the aerial parade. Bring your ear plugs and a bullhorn so we can talk about it. I'm directly under the action. Sincerely, fJ /c Nick Gunderson Tuesday, March 17, 1992 6847 18th NE Seattle, WA 98115 - 680 March 16, 1992 Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Sarah P. Dalton, M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: I am writing concerning the FAA's proposal for new flight tracks approaching SEATAC from the north. I strongly oppose any additional tracks that place the flight paths of incoming planes over residential areas in north Seattle. The FAA, possibly in collusion with the Port of Seattle, seems to have a complete disregard for airplane noise problems in our part of town. Apparently the FAA has chosen to ignore the possibility that plane noise in north Seattle may be a problem to hundreds of people. As you can see from my address, I live directly under the "new and improved" four -post flight plan approved by the FAA Administrator about 2 years ago. Although I live 15 miles north of the airport, during periods with south winds, many times planes line up miles north of my house to begin their approach. Contrary to the decision that planes this far from the airport could not (or should not) be considered too noisy, in reality they are. When outside, it is not possible to carry on a simple conversation with someone more than a few feet away when they fly over. Why? Because even this far from the airport, their landing gear and flaps are already down, thus increased throttle is required to maintain airspeed because of increased drag. One of my friends who pilots for Alaska Airlines says the Seattle . approaches are called the "OPEC Route" because of the increased fuel it takes to fly low and slow during approaches. Because of these noise problems, I do not believe that any more than the absolute minimum number of additional houses should be subjected to the conditions that we are forced to endure. Thus, if the FAA plans additional routes into Seattle, they should place them as much as possible over the water. This could be either over Lake Washington or Puget Sound. The latter was the approach route from the north used until a couple of years ago that did not impact houses and certainly would be preferable to the now in -place four -post plan. I would rather have planes delayed arriving into Seattle and keep them over a single corridor, than to decrease the livability of additional Seattle neighborhoods. There seems to be no point in destroying what is good about our city to make it more convenient for visitors and business people to get here a few minutes earlier. If you doubt the veracity of my noise claims,, I invite you to give me a call and I'll arrange for you or other staff from your office to have lunch in my backyard on an average day to experience the conditions yourself. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for your.consideration. Sincerely y urs ) , John G. Williams .A25 -7697 cc: Port of Seattle Commission Congressman Jim McDermott >ouih T9evitral SCHOOL DISTRICT 406 KING COUNTY 4640 SOUTH 144th STREET • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 -4196 March 18, 1992 Sarah Dalton Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airport District Office, Suite 250 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Dalton: I,R Ph ‘30 ie'; ,244 ,2100 LU I am forwarding to you a copy of Resolution No. 499 requesting the Federal Aviation Administration to complete an environmental impact statement on microwave landing systems at the Sea -Tac Airport that addresses the questions of additional noise, health, safety, security and flight patterns as they may impinge upon school district operations in the South Central School District. The South Central Board of Directors unanimously adopted this resolution at a special Board meeting on March 17, 1992. Sincerely, Michael Silver, Ph.D. Superintendent c: Highline School District Superintendent and Board Mayor Wally Rantz, City of Tukwila Sarah Skogland, Manager, Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 406 RESOLUTION NO. 499 A resolution to encourage the Federal Aviation Administration to develop a complete environmental impact statement on microwave landing systems at Sea -Tac Airport. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration is considering use of microwave landing systems at Sea -Tac Airport, and WHEREAS, the South Central School District No. 406 owns and operates several school buildings that are situated near the flight pattern on approaches or departures to Sea -Tac runways, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the South Central School District No. 406 has a critical interest in changes in flight patterns and the generation of noise that would interfere with class instruction and in the safety of school children and staff, NOW THEREFORE, the South Central School District No. 406 Board of Directors requests the Federal Aviation Administration to complete an environmental impact statement that addresses the questions of additional noise factors, health, safety, security and flight patterns, as they may impinge upon !chool district operations in the South Central School District. ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 1992. 'R.,,,,tf2e( A. L.,„,„1, Chairman Members • d- //!,C - 0 1 W 4 . ` el, fae7-.1.J ctQ//e-ec� itJ ��~�v�� j Ate Zei/e7� C�j�lR .2/JGCjGti -eG� 74-04-e_ • A. . z s a1 -41 of c;•yzi N.? o e•ee r «s )1J 7 G G /7e7 /UGC Z /G� i /Ili /rGe, , I_S //7C / / °� 2t'a'l eQ_-) � ! �C�- CJ..-c/ * \e �/7e 2 ? ate' /JP� /-1• 2 - ' ,, 1 / ?3y — l6 ,v6 �zc7v F/ /S 3421 East Superior Street Seattle, Washington 98122 March 18, 1992 Ms. Sarah P. Dalton Microwave Landing System Project Seattle Airports office 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton, I write to request reconsideration of the designation of flight tracks to be utilized with the planned Microwave Landing System at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. It is disturbing to see that increasingly, since 1975, commercial air traffic has been directed over the most heavily populated and minority- dominated sections of Seattle. In 1975, my neighborhood, which is the most diversely populated of any of the neighborhoods along Lake Washington (it is 60% non - white) , found itself directly under a new flight track for aircraft turning East during North Flow operations. The impact of the East Turn began as a trickle of perhaps a half dozen flights a day in 1975 and increased to 140 to 150 overflights a day now. This is traffic that was once funnelled through the much less populated Elliot Bay /Duwamish industrial area. I live eleven miles from the airport, yet during the clear summer days it seems as if the airport is next door. In 1988, some of F . A. A. staff visited one of our community meetings and experienced the loud roar of turning aircraft. The meeting had to be interrupted several times to let the noise pass so we could hear each other talk. The promises then were that a mediation effort would lead to great improvements. I was the local representative to the numerous committee meetings and programs that comprised the mediation process. But I was soon disappointed to find matters worsen with the adopt. ion in 1990 of the Four -Post Plan, which greatly exacerbated the effects of flight tracks -- both noise and occasional fuel dumping -- on minority communities by bringing all the South Flow arriving traffic over the heart of Seattle. The third runway will only make matters worse by increasing air traffic flow. A microwave landing system would normally be promoted to add flexibility to flight track management, yet very little flexibility is proposed. I strongly urge the F.A.A. to reconsider this decision, in favor of utilizing alternative tracks over water and industrial areas. Sincerely yours, Copies: Mayor Norm Rice Seattle City Council County Councilman Ron. Sims congressman Jim McDermott 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 March 20, 1992 Ms. Sarah Dalton Puget Sound Planner Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 ..%::"5",::-617 78 r. 41 �'\ (t"... , ' l9 r•� �� J.. John W. Rants, Mayor Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment for the MIS Demonstration Program at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport Dear Ms. Dalton: The above - referenced draft environmental assessment fails to adequately account for noise impacts the demonstration program will cause to neighborhoods northeast of the airport. The integrated noise model (INM) utilized for the assessment is clearly inadequate for the task. The neighborhood areas of Allentown and Cascade View within the City of Tukwila will be significantly impacted. Approach flight paths during IFR conditions are currently 1.5 miles from Allentown. Under the preferred alternative, MLS -A, this would be reduced by 50% to .75 miles (figure 3, page 2.6). Approach alight paths are currently .8 miles from the Cascade View neighborhood. Under MLS -A this would be reduced to A miles (figure 3, page 2.6). At an altitude of 1,000 feet, planes will be only 2,300 feet (straight line distance) from homes. This is approximately one half the current distance. In gathering data for the INM analysis, no noise analysis grid points were located within Tukwila. It should also be noted that such grid points were located in much more distant neighborhoods in Seattle. The INM analysis produced DNL contour lines that are virtually identical to existing DNL contours (Figures 16, 17, 18, 19; pages 5.14 - 5.17). This is despite the fact that the MLS -A approach path is shifted east over 4,000 feet. Any reasonable impact analysis that would fail Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • Clry Hall Fax (206) 433-1833 Ms. Sarah Dalton March 20, 1992 Page 2 to note an adverse impact associated with moving a flight path 50% closer to a residential neighborhood is clearly inadequate. The fact that the INM model fails to show a negative impact from MLS -A does not effectively demonstrate the MLS -A program will have minimal impact. It does, however, indicate the INM model lacks the environmental sensitivity that is necessary for it to perform its task. (See environmental assessment page 5.1.) Clearly, the INM model and the DNL system of assigning noise contours are inadequate for assessing and tracking noise impacts upon the surrounding community. The MLS 16L option, which does not deviate from existing flight paths, is a more acceptable alternative. MLS -16L, as stated, "... would demonstrate the precision capability of MLS..." (page 3.6). The FAA is urged by the City of Tukwila to provide a more detailed analysis of noise impacts caused by the MLS demonstration program. Sincerely, )11444 ohn W. Rants Mayor JWR:SL /so mlscammjw �. T HIGHLINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES and ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 15875 Ambaum Boulevard SW • Telephone 206. 433 -0111 Seattle, Washington 98166 BOARD OF DIRECTORS vary ChM President Ben Kodama Vice President Eduardo I. Pine Tom Slattery Wilton S. Vial! III March 19, 1992 Sarah Dalton Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airport District Office, Suite 250 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Dalton: `-O ! is . i n \• jC.• r., 5..-.Z-: - - rr"- / ADMSI ISTRATORS Ken D. Matheson SLXierirsenders Charles N. Hardy Assistant Superintendent Instruction and Curriculum Geraldine L Fain Assistant Superintendent Buairess and Plan Thomas M. MAO Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services On behalf of the Highline School Board and myself, I am writing regarding the environmental impact statement on microwave landing systems (MLS) at the Sea - Tac Airport. We have seen a copy of the map indicating the new landing approaches if the new MLS were to be used. At this time we are opposed to the MLS as it is proposed because it would negatively impact ten to fifteen schools in the Highline School District. We are also requesting the Federal Aviation Administration complete an environmental impact statement on microwave landing systems at the Sea -Tac Airport that addresses the questions of additional noise, health, safety, security and flight patterns as they may impinge upon school district operations in the Highline School District. Sincerely, K ! D. Matheson Superintendent cl CITY OF NORMANDY PARK 801 SW 174TH STREET NORMANDY PARK, WA 98166 TELEPHONE (206) 248 -7603 March 19, 1992 Sarah P. Dalton, Acting Supervisor U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 99055 -4056 • G RE: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Microwave Landing Station Demonstration Project at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. Dear Ms. Dalton: Thank you for allowing the City of Normandy Park to comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment •(DEA) for the Microwave Landing System (MLS) demonstration project to be located at Sea -Tac International Airport. In general, the City of Normandy Park supports any effort that will improve the safety of aircraft landings and allow for more efficient usage of the current airport facilities. However, Normandy Park does not support system improvements that will allow for an increase in the current air traffic capacity of Sea -Tac Airport. It has been stated by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee that Sea -Tac's current capacity is 380,000 flight operations. The DEA makes the statement "the number of aircraft operations will not increase due to this project "(page 5.19). The DEA also projects •• that there will be 382,600 operations in the year of 1993. Because these two numbers are in conflict, it can be interpreted that by increasing the operating efficiency of the airport landing system, the Port of Seattle would have the ability to also increase the number of flight operations at Sea -Tac airport. There is an identifiable relationship between the MLS proposal and several other Port of Seattle actions such as., the Flight Plan and Four Post Plan proposals. It is imperative that the DEA for this proposal, be consistent with and developed as a direct element of these related actions. It is, therefore, our conclusion that increases in aircraft operations are directly dependent upon the implementation of this proposal. With that, this Draft Environmental Assessment should be amended to address noise and other environmental impacts related to the increased flight operations that your figures indicate will result from this project. -, • ■ 9 The City of Normandy Park has concluded that the MLS demonstration project is a key element to other, more significant air transportation issues. Therefore, we are recommending that this =proposal be addressed by the Air Transportation Committee and become a component to the proposed flight plan project. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. The City of Normandy Park is very concerned with the potential expansion of Sea -Tac Airport because of it's impact on quality of life issues, and look forward to a response regarding these concerns. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Dale Gredler, Planning Director, at 248 -7603. Sincerely, James T. Murphy City Manager cc: City Council Planning Director file Leschi Improvement Council P.0.131311 22391 Seattle, Washington 98122 March 19, 1992 Sarah P. Dalton, Acting Supervisor Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton WA 98055 -4056 Dear Ms. Dalton: Attached, please find several pages of a' petition /comment letter signed by a number of citizens opposed to the FAA proposal to site an MLS system in accordance with its preferred alternative. For the most part, the signees are people of the Leschi community of Seattle, an area already adversely impacted by the noise of jet flyovers. Your preferred alternative would expose that neighborhood to additional aircraft noise. By signing the petition, each person is requesting the FAA and Port of Seattle to consider an alternative flight path, such as your Option 3, which would put the planes over water routes, where fewer people would be impacted. We appreciate the decision to extend the comment period, allowing for this opportunity for the concerned public to comment on the actions proposed by the FAA. S' cerely, ames C. Leon e• , LIC Jet Nois= Committee ',,- Ms Sharon Da l t c'n /4 1 Seattle Airports Office r "7 1601 Lind Avenue SW `; ' ���� lyy Renton, WA 98055- 4056'' , i fit: 1 Dear Ms Dalton: `•t March 18, 1992 • This letter is about noise. I hope it's only one of many you've received and so in that regard not unique. However, it is the only one I've written, and in my mind I view it as quite unique and quite worthy of your attention. I live in Madrona with my wife and small daughter. We have resided there for over 5 years now. We enjoy the neighborhood for any number of reasons and consider ourselves quite fortunate to call it home. Over the last several years I have become quite alarmed and concerned over the increase in volume of airplane noise and the frequency of airplanes flying over our neighborhood. It used to be only North departures that were problematic, lately there seems to have been a dramatic increase in the'South landings. The combination of the two patterns leaves us almost no time free from this noise bombardment. Despite the stage 2 vs stage 3, noise abatment, and ether rhetoric I read, the problem is worsening. I've given considerable thought as to how best communicate my feelings on this matter. Aside from the obvious I wish it would go away mentality, which I don't held much hope for, I guess in my mind what it boils down to is recognizing that the airport is a regional utility and as a result the problems that accompany it should be shouldered by the entire region. Rather than drawing an arbitrary line as a flight pattern and making miserable the lives of those unfortunate enough to live beneath it, make alot of lines so that no one community suffers disproportionately. I believe all the communities of Seattle are reasonable enough to share the burden of noise pollution as long as it is equitable. There are enough natu1- 1 extensions of the North South airport vectors that make this quite reasonable and passible. Please give ,this letter its due consideratc'n. The people of Madrona deserve it. Thank you for your time. Office of the Mayor City of Seattle Norma- _ R..;e ',•3; or March 19, 1992 Sarah P. Dalton, Acting Supervisor Washington Section Seattle Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue S. W. Renton, Washington 98055 -4056 RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Microwave Landing System (MLS) Demonstration Program at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Dear Ms. Dalton: The City of Seattle is pleased with the anticipated implementation of the Microwave Landing System at Sea -Tac. The MLS has potential as an aircraft noise mitigation tool because it can facilitate varied approaches to Sea -Tac's runways, allowing flights to overfly less populated areas, such as water or industrial areas. The noise mitigation potential of the MLS leads to its inclusion in the Sea -Tac Noise Mediation Agreement. The MLS will also allow greater use of existing capacity and will enhance safety -- both desirable goals. In spite of the expectations for the Microwave Landing System as a noise mitigation tool, both the Draft Environmental Assessment and the proposed operation of the MLS fail to live up to expectations. In fact, the MLS will concentrate increased operations over an already heavily impacted area. The alternatives evaluated do not include substantial noise mitigation strategies. The MLS provides an opportunity to alter and /or disperse flight paths to enhance or distribute noise mitigation. I regret that the opportunity was not fully explored in planning for the demonstration project or in the environmental assessment. I am concerned that the MLS will eventually have the reverse effect of increasing the noise impacts. Please evaluate the above issues in the Final Environmental Assessment. I firmly believe that every opportunity should be provided to mitigate the impacts of aircraft operations on the citizens and environment in the region. The Draft Environmental Assessment fails to address the opportunity for mitigation. Following is a list of ways in which I believe the Assessment is deficient. Ar eoua! employment opponunity - affirmative acteon employer. 1200 Municipal Building. 600 Fourth Avenue. Seattle, Washington 98104.1873. (FAX) 684.5360 (206) 684.4000 'Printed on Recycled Pamir' h. Sarah P. Dalton March 19, 1992 Page 2 1. The data in the environmental assessment, Time -Above Analysis, show that in each case aircraft time above selected points with the MLS equals or exceeds the time above without MLS (page 5.11). Do these data show that the MLS does not mitigate or reduce noise impacts and in fact actually increases the impacts through duration of exposure? What can be done to reduce the noise impacts and /or to change the location of the impacts to affect a smaller number of people? 2. The data in the environmental assessment table on Day -Night Noise Level (DNL) show that in virtually each case, noise increases at the noise impact analysis grid points with MLS in the future years, and in no case does the noise decrease (page 5.9). Do these data show that MLS increases the noise impacts of aircraft operations? What does the FAA propose to do to mitigate the impacts? 3. The aircraft equipped with MLS account for 42 (1993) and 69 (1998) arrivals per day. These aircraft are Dash 8 and Dorniers. What is the prospect of additional types of aircraft being equipped with MLS? Which types and when is that likely to occur? How would inclusion of other types of aircraft in the system affect the noise calculations? 4. What is the potential of the MLS to distribute flights and /or alter flight paths to overfly less populated areas, such as Lake Washington or Puget Sound, while on approach to Sea -Tac? What is the difference in population overflown on different approach patterns during the time that aircraft would be below 8,000 feet? below 4,000 feet? below 2,000 feet? How does the definition of the affected environment relate to the location and frequency of noise complaints received by the Port of Seattle, both prior to and after implementation of the Four Post Plan (page 4.1)? 5. The Draft Environmental Assessment states that one of the "objectives established by the MLS Demonstration Program...[was]...minimizing noise impacts on the community" (page 1.1). What was the rationale used by the Port of Seattle to discard from further consideration those alternative approaches which had noise abatement advantages but involved "a flight track that deviated significantly from existing traffic patterns" (page 3.4)? How does the Port of Seattle expect to act aggressively to abate aircraft noise without changing existing practices? How do the alternatives compare in this regard? What steps were taken to optimize noise reduction on the population in general and on sensitive receptors such as hospitals and schools? 6. With regard to the calculation of "delay savings," how is "delay" defined? Why was delay assumed to be the same in both 1993 and 1998 (Appendix B)? What a Sarah P. Dalton March 19, 1992 Page 3 circumstances might affect the amount of delay that could be reduced or saved in future years that would be different from current projections? How do selected: aircraft equipped with MLS -A and thus landing with, zero delay affect cumulative delay of all other aircraft in the system? In essence, by going to the head of the queue, does that not increase the delay of all other aircraft awaiting landing? What are the associated increases in cost? 7. The MLS- equipped aircraft will be Dash 8 and Dorniers, which are small . commuter aircraft. How does the effective incentive of zero delay for these small aircraft affect other demand management incentives that are designed to increase the passenger movement capacity of the airport? How does it relate, to the use of larger aircraft? 8. Does the forecast for an increase in the number of flights of the MLS- equipped Dash 8 and Dornier aircraft between 1993 and 1998 take into account the changes in aircraft mix forecast as part of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Study and the demand management element incorporated in each of the study's policy options? Note that the study . forecasts precede the adoption of the demand management component of the options and thus may be marginally high. 9. What are the potential air pollution impacts of the. MLS resulting from changes in aircraft operations? Will the changes in delay have any effect on emissions while aircraft are on the ground? The City of Seattle appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental assessment. Sincerely, cc: Paige Miller, President, Seattle Port Commission Tom Tierney, Director, Office of Intergovernmental Relations J. Gary Lawrence, Director, Planning Department Marsha Tanaka P.O.Box 4252 Seattle, Washington 98104 March 19, 1992 Sarah P. Dalton M.L.S. Project Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue SW Renton, Washington 98055 -4056 Dear S.P. Dalton, It appears that in rejecting MLS Track Option 2, the FAA has exposed itself as a single- minded policy making force which concedes less than minimum consideration to the populace it serves. To have gone through the motions of developing an "Option 2" only to sweep it away with the thinly veiled objection that it "deviated significantly from existing traffic patterns" paints the FAA as condescending. Studying the FAA proposed flight track and the MLS Option 2 flight track reveals no significant deviation. The outstanding feature of this comparison is the number of neighborhoods between I -5 and Lake Washington which are adversely affected by noise in the FAA proposed flight track. The projection of 300 planes using this flight track each day when the third runway operates at full capacity is also outstanding. Overhead noise every five minutes is a significant deviation from existing traffic patterns for the neighborhoods overshadowed by the FAA MLS proposal. Option 2 which routes traffic over Lake Washington for a fair distance reduces the number of affected neighborhoods. It is more than disconcerting to be jolted from sleep by thundering airplane engines close overhead. It is extremely aggravating to have conversations interrupted while in or around the home as massive planes bore across the immediate vicinity. This auditory interference has escalated markedly in the last year. Proposal of the third runway will serve to increase this detrimental effect. The quality of life is and will be in the decline. Conceding to Option 2 appears to be a means of reducing an unpleasant effect of air traffic with only a minor deviation in proposed routes. In response to noise advocates who contend that noise is all a "part of life in the city ", it would be interesting to document the locations which these rationalists have chosen to reside. Probability may prove that few if any of them live next to the freeway or the airport, which are "part of life in the city ". The FAA Option 2 is the less disruptive route and the one of choice. Sincerely, Dear Ms. Dalton: March 19, 1992 John Spertus Sarah Hoffmann 3602 East Cherry St. Seattle, WA 98122 1 am writing you today to comment on the F.A.A.'s proposed microwave landing system for Sea -Tac airport. I believe that you are involved in compiling an environmental impact statement for this proposal. I also understand that the proposed landing route for this system would be 3300 East, a course located directly over my home. The Madrona area already takes a large burden of airway noise from Sea -Tac. Especially on clear days my wife and 1 are often aggravated by the roar of jets as they move in and out of the Madrona area. Last summer we had a new baby. Can you imagine the frustration of finally getting our newborn child to sleep by 4 am only to have her awaken less than 3 hours later by the noise from Sea-Tec planes? Certainly no community wants to have the cacophonous rumble of airplanes flying over their homes. 1 can also appreciate the dilemma of having to expand Sea - Tac's operations to accommodate the large growth in our area. However, even if all potential routes will impact human or environmental habitats, we feel that the Madrona community is already shouldering a heavy burden of our city's noise pollution. 1 am writing to let you know that we are seriously opposed to additional air traffic over 3300 East and 1 am asking that you take advantage of alternative routes. We would greatly appreciate a response from you. We would also like to be kept informed of the F.A.A.'s plans for air traffic patterns as they change and affect our community. Thank you, in advance, for using alternative routes which would share the burden of airport noise throughout the area benefitted by the improved capacity of Seattle-Tacoma Airport. Sincerely, Sp • rtus q. fs'D i; 1_1( . 011,1_ ---- Sarah Hoffmann Federal Aviation Administration Sarah P. Dalton, MIS Project Seattle Airports Office 1601 Lind Avenue SW Renton, WA 980554056 . A••••- • 3/13/92 sn .,n- ersc.!�'nranun �:xa�.v.vca+arx,•++:.. ++ Dear Ms. Dalton: about increased flights and jet Community resident, I am expressing concern o� planning; you may As a Madrona house. Please reSP° nd to the problems described IoW in y direct over re nse to Mr. Leonard, at the phone number listed' direct your response `�.:...��,y� *� ::. Thank you, Andrew R. Goulding AIA 1628 Madrona Drive Seattle WA 98122 ISO as ly VS ∎ . y 19%" d C•o ? fit!- ,r• Vift °t°r „am if s� S Syi cjD of cy t �t�: f.°, • `�°�`° *:.1: 1 116 :1 1�• 7:3$1 • es c • 114:011;4,:1411:0:0° •ls�lt • tP�•�c� �19•„ i�y_•1i "61.1704941 •••• •���•�� c� `�s d VW) 11. 2$411 °mss`'• �• .J7 ttic g• °• 1 t 6.10 `v�Scy 9 416;613 4•t� �ct• tI!� J• d41�dsc14t01. 110' on '01--ii• c1• ` so c•1.9 c c 1•j9e _ soo. 111 1� yGy e t` •• • p0 M• c• Mi•s`• •t d tot. tt1 �. .•� b go) 1.66 • f o5 os too *•t 322 -9422 Ce n President Paige Miller, Mayor Norm Rice, Congressman McDermo Port Comrnissio 11.0wootp airAw1811., • creaucy 0.. CWST $ : COMPANY/FIRM J. RICHARD ARAMKRU ATTCANCY AT 6AA, SW "E a. CO.:tic C....6 1111.11LZ.NO V:11.0.AZ.110's fit•IALC- SCATT6C. VVASPaiNICITON 951C41- 1106. 62S•DS,1 FAX 1 206-682-1376 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET A ATTN: S.' ci r OA 1+011 FAX #: 7-2-'7 450 ROM: AS Agct €4 Loa-1 RcfiA OUR CL/ENT RE: CRC/ A c. &li-s 20 m v- a_ trTra: NUm3ER OF ?AGES SENT IN THIS TRANSMISSION (including cover sheet) 69 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE NUrpER QF PAGES INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE CALL US, AT 206-625-$E15 • MESSAGE • lz 0 / 2— cL 1". �.. 1. .1. RIC-4 AIJ C� ARAM'UAU M. LUSTS J. RICHARD ARAMBURU ATTORNEY AT LAW 4LITE QOD, CCL_C.SC C:.UO ■L'LCNO ■05 rJAZISON S"RCF-T SCATTLt, WASH :NGTGN 0OI04 (20e: EIS -9Y15 March 20, 1992 Ms. Sarah P. Dalton Acting Supervisor Washington Section Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 -4056 RE: Draft Environmental Assessment, Installation of Two Microwave Landing Systems at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Dear Ms. Dalton: This office represents the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs ( "RCAA "), a coalition of community organizations, municipalities, business, educational and professional interests concerned with future aviation activity at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. A list of RCAA members is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The following represents the comments of the RCAA on the draft environmental assessment. 1. The apparent purpose of the subject proposal is to increase capacity at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Sea - Tac). However, we note that there is currently underway a process by which the Port of Seattle ( "P0S ") is proposing major modifications in the airport, including the construction of a third dependent runway. Last year the Port produced an Airport Enhancement Plan dated June 1991, which also includes a variety of potential improvements to the existing airfield, including an LDA approach, CAT I ILS on 16L, and the reduction of in trail spacing. Given the numerous proposals now under consideration, we believe that the proposed MLS should be considered together with these other alternatives, and not segmented out for individual review. This is especially true given that the overall proposal at the port is to increase capacity at the airport and the MLS proposal is but one of a variety of ways to accomplish that goal. Each of these other alternatives should b• considered in determining the most efficient method and least costly method of providing additional capacity at the airport. Accordingly, we ask that further review of the MLS proposal be postponed and considered within a broader review of options for improvements to the existing now underway. March 20, 1992 Page 2 2. The subject DEA is also inappropriate and premature because the Port of Seattle ( "POS ") has not completed all necessary authority to seek FAA approval for this project. In particular, we note that the POS has not yet complied with the procedural or substantive requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C ( "SEPA"). SEPA requires that any proposal which involves the potential for significant adverse environmental impact proceed through a checklist and threshold determination process specified in the SEPA Rules, WAC Ch. 197 -i1. Inasmuch as the subject proposal to conduct an MLS system at Sea -Tac is not exempt, the POS must comply with SEPA procedural rules. We note particularly that the DEA prepared by the FAA indicates that it is the POS that "requested" the FAA to install the MLS system: Presently, the Port of Seattle lacks authority to seek FAA approval, because they have not considered the MLS process through the SEPA procedures. By a copy of this letter, we are also informing the Port of Seattle of our position. Accordingly, the FAA should postpone further consideration of this MLS, pending complete compliance by the Port of Seattle with its own regulations. If the Port's SEPA process results in the need to prepare an EIS for its proposal, further review by the FAA should await preparation of that document. 3. With respect to the purpose and need for the proposal, we note that the proposal is justified on the basis of creating a parallel approach route for certain aircraft as described on page 3.3 However, that approach will only be usable by propeller driven aircraft with MLS equipment on board. Given that POS expects the number of aircraft of this type using Sea - Tac to decrease significantly, will the use of the MLS decrease in the future? 4. As will be discussed hereinafter, the proposed MLS system will create new approaches to Sea -Tac not previously used. We believe this has some significant environmental impacts, but also question whether or not this equipment will be usable by jet aircraft at some later time. Is the present system limited to approaches by small aircraft? If so, will further environmental review occur if larger jet aircraft are proposed to use the MLS system? Are there any jet aircraft presently quipped to use the MLS system, and if not, what improvements will be required to large jet aircraft to permit the use of the MLS system as it proposed to be installed. 5. We are confused about the calculation of delay savings for the MLS -A approach as defined in Appendix H. We note that the calculation of an average 28- minute delay per arrival at Sea -Tac is used to calculate delay savings. Is this delay March 20, 1992 Page 3 entirely related to congestion at Sea -Tac, or are there other causes (equipment, personnel, connections, late arriving aircraft, etc.)? Unless Horizon's flights are entirely due to congestion, this figure is not valid for computation of delay. We are curious whether this 28- minute delay is the result of a computer simulation or actual experience by Horizon Airlines. If a computer simulation is used, then what is the actual delay experienced for Horizon for different periods during the year. We note that on -time information by airlines is available, and accordingly request that such information be provided. We also question the use of $1440 per hour as the cost of operating the Horizon Airlines fleet. Please provide the source for the use of $1440 per hour and indicate whether or not it is a relatively smaller amount to operate smaller aircraft. We also question the use of any detailed calculations here because Appendix B does not calculate the percentage of time specific weather conditions prevail during congestion conditions. It is also important to know to what extent delay: are attributable to congested operations during .VFR conditions, which cannot be improved by the subject proposal. We note that you reference the Airport capacity Enhancement Plan of June 1991 in Appendix B, and calculate a 28- minute delay per arrival at Sea -Tac. However in 1989, 335,000 operations occurred which produced (according to POS), and there were 48,000 hours of delay, which is only 8.5 minutes per operation. Why are Horizon's delays so much higher than the average. We find no justification for these figures. In addition, while MLS may be a desirable goal, we find it impossible to believe that every minute of delay will be taken out because of the MLS -A approach. Given other delay factors that occur with landing aircraft, please justify your calculation that all delays will be removed by the MLS system. We note that page 5 -8 that "in 1998 55% of the aircraft fleet is forecasted to be MLS equipped." Is this only propeller driven category A and B aircraft, or does this include large jet aircraft? 6. With respect to noise contours, the DEA only provides contours for "DNL" noise levels. SEL noise levels should also be provided for 70, 75 and 80 SEL contours. In addition, the number of events at each SEL level should be summarized for the proposed MLS approaches. The noise signatures for the various aircraft contemplated to use the MLS system should also be considered and calculated. An addition, a calculation should be made of the number and location of residences, businesses, parks and schools that will be receiving aircraft overflights, March 20, 1992 Page 4 especially those which have not previously received such overflights. 7. With respect to weather conditions, calculation should be made of the frequency of weather conditions, particularly VFR -2 and IFR -1 during times of congestion and most particularly of arrivals. 8. A number of options are indicated at pages 3.4 and 3.5. Please indicate whether or not each of these options could be used should the MLS system be installed as is proposed. 9. The report discloses no indication of cost for the proposed system. Please supply actual costs indicated as well as for alternatives identified in Paragraph 1 herein. 10. capacity whether capacity ultimate Various reports have indicated that Sea -Tae has a of only 390,000 aircraft operations. Please indicate or not the proposed development will increase the of the facility after immediate installation and for installation.. Based upon the foregoing, we reach two conclusions with respect to the subject proposal. First, that environmental review and consideration of the MLS proposal is premature and that it should be considered among the several options to increase capacity at Sea -Tac. This proposal should be considered as a part of longer range and broader reviews of options available. Second, it appears that the potential for current and future overflights over areas not previously overflown by aircraft presents a potential for significant environmental impacts, requiring the preparation of a full environmental impact statement. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the subject DEA. Si cerly yo r . Richard Aramburu JRA/py cc: RCAA Port of Seattle :r.zzi rm'apt," f;SjK-GU -�� r.K 1 14.00 rnn iru, ‘uuuuc.1. uu EXHIBIT A City of Des Moines City of Normandy Park City of Tukwila Highline School District Highline Community College Highline Community Hospital Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Wesley Homes Aircraft Noise Coalition (ANC) Aircraft Noise Group of Seattle Community Council Federation (ANG) (35- member neighborhood councils) Citizens Alternatives to Sea -Tac Expansion (CASE) 29- member neighborhood councils) Eastside Citizens Against Aircraft Noise (ECAAN) Aircraft Noise Abatement Council (ANAL) Southwest King County Citizens Against Aircraft Noise and Pollution (SWKCCAANP) RCAA Federal Way Sea -Tao Airport Action Committee (SAAC) Queen Anne Community Council Martin Liebowitz • Madrona Company 1625 39th Ave. Seattle, Wa. 98122 Td: 325-1224 FAA Attn: Sarah P. Dalton, MLS Project Seattle Airports Office 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Wa. 98055 -4056 3/18/92 Dear Ms. Dalton, I have just learned that the FAA plans to institute a new microwave landing system for Sea Tac which would guide nearly 300 additional plants a day during the south flow landing periods directly over my neighborhood. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! Not only are we forced to endure the 150 planes per day taking off over our heads on clear summer days, but now this. As both a business person, a resident of thc Madrona neighborhood, and former president of thc Community Council, I can not but wonder whether this new plan is somehow racially motivated. Flying all your planes directly over the heads of residents of the Central Area is an insult to our human rights. Havent' you and your staff ever heard of FAIR SHARE? Maybe you feel that you can continue to dump your noise and jet fuel over the minority population of Seattle, and that it's somehow ok, and that nobody of any political power will complain. You arc wrong. If this proposal goes forward I can guarantee you a lawsuite which will embarrass both you, your staff, the administration that appointed you to your post, and anyone else associated with this decision. Fly your plants over Elliot Bay or the Duwamish. Those areas also need to experience what airplane noise is all about. The minority population of Seattle does not deserve this treatment, and, f assure you, that a law suite will be quickly initiated unless you change this proposal. Our neighborhood is no longer your dumping ground. Yours truly Martin Licbow .,.....,.. ,....�.r.n::.vYe.�wrr..s^se�xrz rx ri^�a >+•:�.ia, zxa,• ;rozc.mnm S� --/741 M z miv /1‘4, S' Gv . .e '%rti1 cif • zoo. 90 /5� M4 i4/ Z- G-�s mil/ Z;71/A" 44- 4444 f 1# oe/'' /a,�� fi ,9t,e �%€d Jfk e� . ems eeGu � p - l' �5 ac�%GG� C � �l 4.i /�.. . / .-rte. he,,74,,,i `", / �./ //d ' ki i : >/4 /. J4 6,.��,e ,'//....7 �.+�..- 4;711,76 %,-/-4746k � /'LU /S�- �-� feL�lciv �,,i.., . /(i=e rill �e, 4, ,,z 4-4,W7 01 7'119 %fir (1.tiw.,.. / rufrr-,e.-.-r , 2,11-/4-- -,,,-z- 7,/.5- Mil," . 7k-;Z pv TAI -X! 52'?v1 -�' • q. 19. dvAcve 4VI2/ Cn4iJD14 10, 'xi bun d r-e cAJ Rc/Yf+rn 1Nt1 98aS5- 56 A7riv: 5 a.�A_h DtuBteyi , rn Ls Po /tut -V do 'LT-DI- (rt-ex f)-4 41/44_ -I-D hev-e. a Aftui -ill d,,mA.Jatp-e. kid, n: atiya_t-yvN. ekyt- _ top i A CAu tee.._ �..e a � Y -f��ic 444 4,\,. pg8tAki2.4 7,As-vb? a dvt-e4s-dj,- bite.s -2-netyvvy /40J2_ Plo Aeo-e, CADS6a_. G /-7Ltd � (&uirz- --71-Y0.oC rs e-cf 5v-eA 7/1/144,cA-- CAAA0 iminAsekk- d"73 z 33 id A v-e.. ,S .9a*-eA •qa PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME Johse! N ADDRESS ZIP CODE ley 114 ut pt5 31! 2 14 4f 5'ef ',. ;r �1 �- cJ oct s2 V.c Ave . s - 't (144 Joe 32w Ad 5 eirtxraL tA4 V q11 e, ,"7,2, ?� Nelsvv+ 3/G G,�^^ 516- 3rr A 5 FRArJ ¥ (,LS CpR o FFI, 7 9 3"icwit, (A ) Sao- t t:, / "7 5y4/ -32" a- 16. - -. fvvy ri Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman. Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSpeattle, WA 98122 by March 18. 1992. 2 A PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Bea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the-art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME Hele4 . wdC u ►x.5 1 ADDRESS ZIP CODE p/i m aii y Vic_!c Sekl 5 4 S�-• Se -ff I 9 F 5)1 3v" fie, A-732_ �-� - _� 9 & &/� 2l 2)2 AVe 5 Se- C2, ___ / 7,3 3 pL--74/8 � A- 9i/ _kr Q X31`' a. g r �r . Galt i-Z ,qv • s41 H� 7 - y Aa .7e/ ',9 So. .S . 2g/may �iyy 10 Jik, G,bdos 1 1 /t 4 6d; 2/0 ? S Lane St. 3/0 s l�-1 S 7.6i9 ycz Send signed petitions to Jarnes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Imp/ovemeni Council, 935 31st Avenue$Seattle. WA 98122 by March 18. 1992. -4- •612_ 4 PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME 1 rIi n ADDRESS 2) _ 36, 3 ZIP CODE Ma K (nn 3 `) i • el, „saeC r"-IL. �� 4 X9L.4.A4St w, U/ e 1 FF. 70 L 3/ 51 /9 ce 7vz - 3 /C,1 So y ia ?tede.L3 11 d77 /G ;6- s Wad 4063 _ tizc. Le V Ut` A V� �' S6.IArrLC -- l Off, Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st A venue$ Seattle, WA 981 by March 18, 1992. 9 ?/ y4 PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal. Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The i ew plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the-art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS 76 0-1C‘0474 2 41L40-' 7os 3011\ kit-S. ZIP CODE 961/g 7 iqq J Li 2//7U‘:- 027d S' a - ff / gvsici t. 0 Guloe r'' S 2 2- q ".A.16..S, 3OB' -G AVp 5 • Send signed .etitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSSeattle. WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME • ADDRESS ZIP CODE I 4g) ?341 . h'Ak Ji77z& 9' /2Z /L' OW WI Ab _64,244 34 6 o� ci" 112 6 7 _1 6 _.! _ tinol.� rte: j 3C5 Z Pr . _ I3 _ J: 1 (4 4 (2132 3 rd ,,4 S SPAttA, it-s `l' /L/y 1Y-18 ,�, �2 —GOgal Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenues Seattle, WA2 by March 18, 1992. ' cl"tl ►{'l PREVENT MORE .AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE 6.4)0 (2--0(111. A. /we tJe �i(��y � d-• cr,2 4 r- n 3 /H :� Z� Sec, l C-2i1-1 4 kt (..■ �ex: 7r'I `(G.() L) , i /1\4' ) Ci (7/(f 5 1 � -� . ..� 3`-(2..o � . s /P,e. -esk_ev. .1) s a ? �� z z Sf � �� � ? cF (2 z. 3d e 34 AN. 022-d 10 11 c-/ 1 ` V- Send signed petitions to Jarnes Leonard. Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSSeattle, WA by March 18. 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal. Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Hay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionall7 used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS tie 4 5 , ZIP CODE 2 >> 3 � 1 S � IL) 0 3 3 `"Q/ e 9 (', 2L tz S mkt co3 L4f f 5, v4; S. 1 1 « 6fl- _if Z7 IV!! A-vz S'b Bath ei_etuty\a.tiv qb kt-c 9 e ff 7 .S clrg c( Send signed petitions to Jarnes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSSeattle, WA 98422 by March 18, 1992. �}►�- 3.93- PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field t� send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new•, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS e/ Cr/& f 3 (0--) .1" ri- /cam ZIP CODE �f/yy --i36 3 ?= /fie 5.1L22� Wk° 0)- Ile_a m)/?? 5 6 l.e,t s/j /3 /v aG 476-f1 ? v\ v10 C \\2 -. 5 (%aze 5 4 66 ,0-- s 'k'v e As>Am L/7,37>'4 / i. s 7 /`17 Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman. Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenues,Seattle. WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. ir 4 PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal. Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight- ,tracks. NA ADDRESS ZIP CODE s12 ((of - ((�'' s s 6-_jd 40o 5 i iE ikoz. . 4"2' L —iIOZ )vase .C:tias. ��. -7 2 z 3 5 1C. 11 � fi2Z Sew 9r/4 -p/ ZZ er CtIOAAllitil )1 (o )) Kt( 51 fflqUi Aw1 6• - 3/3""7-1(<4/ s.. 334 ha; A.. 4... S Irico Send signed petit: s to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$ Seattle, WA 981441 by March 18. 1992. Rcj PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tae Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new; state -of- the-art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. DDRESS Q 1ZIP CODE ( (0 K ck_. t kp- M► c(q . 7t1-34-4,/ 1-(€) . q14 3 T)(r E Cm /k Sey'6 7F72 2 7/y CC1 crel,„„A 9/ )2- 6 lledttiv ,, C- yeSk.a.dee €11722._ NT2 - .t t t L 1 L k cis 1 l-Z s2/ , Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Nois Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA 981 by March 18. 1992. IOD a PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field' to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. • NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE ✓ /e Abe // /L 7 fl 2 (f•Z ( ��i L S. J �// J ci Hot LA K4 C i (1,(4 L1,1 S a a Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$Seattle, WA 98144by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes t.0,re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 330.0 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE 1 )aced L� J Cr� ;e o )2 2" 7 ., #'--- r2 z+ se. z�t� . !mil PB o 7 1.k1:5 \ f \\--DA.4 J h. S ` , ‘ \i. ao ` s'r .ix g g I 2i7, 2 /c�-�- 3 w. , ��, o.�.,— /s- z� '� f�v` /�-� 6 ext\\(\ �v. Yeti1 '��� ri � Pt-c_ J ()lad CCU cLS -c 56te 3 ?g/ y y 6,,41 YNN rc \1 `��'�$ S��l,. u S. c))4.1) 9 CS-DCWA PLC *0J S I:S � `ti S:z2 ? -53 ri</k/E. /4.vf __ 3r Pi, a f 1 ii Ivy C�,`t 1 0 11 Send signed petitions to Jarnes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noisy: Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSpeattle, WA 9814by March 18, 1992. 1-.102.. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 Bast, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state-of- the-art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME r/ .`w r� ADDRESS 2 (4( ZIP CODE 4 5 3 in 2,1, 900 L'e94 VI Y7 Y / Ave - .2>grkielk, t z 6 fit 4 /1i/ A /VA ( 44-.(6 5 S -y ' et- J, / 1- 5 --reizAe 11 12,Z Jou) ‘Z,45 qg 1731 b4. INA . 3iud, s . 5 44-- 4(13 5/ c14:0-r 5-VW Taol,01■\ E. S3PAY t c(g 12 z Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$,Seattle, WA 981 by March 18. 1992. is PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal. Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the•Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE Pno I.�2�lds/ /6 �� (CP16 _661 4 2 7 r A- /,‘ .GP7,) 'I c: oT `.'21-( Vkf'-/ v '-°L 9 cfc- /cZ //irk 7E7.2- 2-- '/ 9 2/Z:In_l_ 31 V ' Ccee . ‘7S(.2. 2- P /eY l r /tr.4 e 3S--t-t4 i So Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman. Aircraft. Noise Committee. Leschi improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS Seattle. WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. �-. t o 4- PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal. Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE She/le /00 (e tics- . (f,;? S V8i ',,te0.©( "I G-e-Z 670.1 -i .4 -6-e . C. ` .3i l 62-- 8 irndc, S nr L. 02336, 33rd / ve So 9'8 Pi/ 9 .) ndy /_ oCe /f- ? o 1 ,I:. re. i e A t 1 c; / )--, 1 4e I, ' a b/ fe .,212 3( A . 3 • l 11 ...0 petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSSeattle, WA 981 by March 18. 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re. route the aircraft landing pattern for Bea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the-art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS 171a -41 mss: g4-1- 3 S Z I P CODE q '3/9, 1Y14-wy t3(ct 3s-zb . Wei 9 Fi),2_ �+ao ...44444. # 31s cnicici �d�l- /t e 3p/ 44e4;4, ''2 7 41t 9f /f 5©q :1 4, e.. S.a ft je upt 9stff (iJ's. alb friL 10 „,Leda Z Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenuesSeattle, WA 984114 by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE v; urvk I-3 JC.. z,. _1)o OAK ii. Me-5 I k/7,k 3-9oz e. , , 4 . 677 /z2_.. fceU,rdNt %/ Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSpeattle. WA 98122 by March 18. 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. N ME 61 '441 ADDRESS ZIP CODE ko-givioq gem ift __LIA;k_fiAjd_S et 3 icr y a, 1111441.I. gA d ‘12-1.--- attorileff Z- z- ( 11I ,tS. CL 9 f/44- b YiCca s _1 9X /yy DlerAp 3011 w((./ 71(f to k-e ;,yit) Pg(Yli S - d signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman. Aircraft Nois Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSSeattle, WA 981 by March 18. 1992. -4., tog PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditional! y used for flight tracks. 2 1 i?ta1 ex.f;tk ADDRESS ZIP CODE /071 MERE p IAA- N .3O� 5 _Leau.,& 1a _ (e 5/eec_ -c_ 6 -fSt 2T2416-06(- .30 4v q))/(7p laa) r 3-70 / ,b(L -5"1. 1 �t1 c. � 5 ► rni\% ?-3 14 9 t ZZ M 3 3 s d 10 11 Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA 9814q by March 18. 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Bea -T•ac .Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods., which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The -new plan is keyed to the installation of a ,new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, .protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME AD DR E S 5 3 •_ S.w ZIP CODE 15./ apt°. 4±1(��Q•k •Pt f- .214 3 4 A- s.. 7l4ct 5 CG2(5 nCfin 'AD61 e‘nictit 6 IA\ OA; ki\ 1-ac S. Nik.e. act • 4-6 qvm.. czkizz- '1 ado,_ its Ci L ` 7 d -.3 3 rc Cecf. /Le / 0 / 12/ ,„ss satt-c-gb)vy I lc sr Sf4:4 reJ Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS'Seattle, WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. l PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal. Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state-of- the-art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. we believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Hay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. ADDRESS ZIP CODE �� 3 1,3 Fc \i's+n y � �� "1 q$' 2 c.2 ude,11(frt, 42-e, Ce<CFIL-'2- 3 /"--/-*Jail/9/--ka(a P/71-24;7? al 4 r , 4 >-- 65-- ,.Z. C Q 'L 4-t S'r .19) 14 o 1 G v 9 t,O.N-cfz, P,(,s1,.3s- c1 4- I Vae 8 10 11�.« Se's si ned petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee 9 P . Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA-98i22 by March 18, 1992. R11� ti el 7 3'Z y PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the North•flow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAJ4EE� / ADDRESS ZIP CODE 144/4 &L /$(4 PO *V //t.ret 7P/* /i'7. u 4/ 4 Al-tsee.e)S141// '41 c,G !O0 • c, l.�C 32N��6 S. 5t11 bu 1 tt33 07 LK u314 Ql vd. a 79 4- 4151 Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman. Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA 98101 by March 18. 1992. 4,112. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northf low -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE i4/o/ C- t.z -a-d (1)6 3 3b ` l 64. `Fey Z 3_ ?a.Y\CJc. n� �t Wvti // :a - t - L at,(_ qr/ 22- =4 h"' q63(ZZ ��a��c ►r ec utU 4tquc c.e .fc 5 0, T4? 26P/2.2 „YAW 'N) • Ste- --3 544 1' z yv t ir/16L Pc . W53i7 "1A "[ 'iz 781zz- 1 ct Mant ci Dl,v,e-r- Jced1Q 0 /(, . 32nd ►tee. Z,1S,r 1.t\ ��/ i �s s' 12v Send signed petitions to Jarnes Leonard, Chairman. Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS>Seattle, WA 981 by March 18. 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path`that 'adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the-art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Hay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS Z CDE 01�c- L,VMf1 1Ss� O y/ 2 t LaZeirlde S. 71123 €( + jj 72 `-5 Z ,, s S eflg_t lb?) FgS e A--t 4 n 5Teu.w.ifv) s s-otro _wiz/ in0 5 %-tkis �. ; qS /1c 8 Yes f ttit in.e — 3.r6 ti toiPtiat gsD1 g FL:At' PO" 1 0 titid_vvi,(6)4/\_ 3y( t 1 , 04, P/. S. c14' &77y Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSSeattle. WA 99422 by March 18, 1992. 911'}y IL q- PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Kt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less- populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditional2y used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE 2 1AQ2174 Job . CA %\( 352.E , Cap -cam Crt .��zZ 3 MM. G t/ec / €ro ,-.i (7/ 8 3?- r'' , t r 2 2 4 \J ., 7,- /cc kV ,1 /-11 ,.7_,(1 a c( ar/2/K 5 \j C,/, 14-r►I J j3 Lis i2L Ave- 6 tt3 Lfilueickx { 2c'7 3342J /10-2' S, iC1/0 0 0- 4 )/ /7/1 0-D,1-9 c > � /Va.( zcr-; c, t CCU 0 - &--"A-4--‘. 3 3 lb . -Y)t mss;, 4.f ,kr Y 11 F 79"S ? C1 : i �� 1 z_ c- 7 J SencPsic�fied pe ons James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$,Seattle, WA 2 by March 18. 1992. �.ilc PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE 1 ,JoA) 14or^ro 5/e �� 1�� - �' qf/ / �(,“, 304 3S1'4 / SQa qdi 22- � 2 ge4, -33 it,A C4ca `)Y( Z� 7 6 C __ -, ,L( 3 ila.W 31\ 'Is 3?" — -1 9 �.� 4j(Zr ck it.41110d Se? icei./4/11zev.47( ///g -,/5PnzeSi 1 )() ,o /62_5 ,/-%/7five ce/4-1 Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSSeattle, WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. • • PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionall; used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE a, '944-u2-1 0/51 '3 0 e4,4L-e--- 1 ?lOcf-.- / 0/v1,4 I'D' . .. C-=--,;=—:. -.;� , L . 1 l 0 _ _ , / / - . 1 jC� l ,j ca. mac:.. i-- P .1 -k6LL� 5t.. ��� 1L' 0. i 4 1 i-ht; 5 :: j 6 S/:///0 ,, (4,4e/ 4 , ,„ ;ion' .3cif,41-e so. 5 ,17 e , 0 Yvyy • 7 II'A'Vr JAA - -1- 9Zy im tm, ri. s . \r i IA 16L-P-1 -6 �L, L. 4 • tt r1.Lf c, ,- .rut- r. J st-7 fl2 - U-/k Q ', yy 9 A/10 r f< v + 41;1/5 f 10 (2 Ya `'./ iy,ei /tii 5 S Cc) a �FA/Li --•"-1-10 LI i'l.1/4 I< i vice < /Ctif c/ • - (5yee u r -24(-2- S. &UD rIU ei Ste, . 11 .1-' ��< �-it- -- (.e -,-e--- 2'152— s• ,,'-l�P� $c�..), . y il } 7J; 1/19-5-- 37 ' ` y G' Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$ Seattle, WA 981 by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tae Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft no -ise during the Northflow -East Turn daps. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, 'state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS redifi A 1 gon t • le raUJ goy vim, S `,8 li 2 , 4 g / 4 . 4 / 3 /),I 4 _ s_ 5 , 3 ,,M of ...G o . . 9 , cry )1 % A.Q- 9 o In - 3,2 ape- Sop 947 e/ ` '106- 3 /Re' f6/ itteheireeegutir e5 C, - 3 a. rG , S1 EP/'cf 4 I L S . C_4(1,ryes S-- 1b3 3. A ac.s ••=1s-1 q 9 ZIP CODE Sen signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise 'Committee. Leschi improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$ Seattle, WA 981 by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. ZIP CODE 3 Attal ( 2J±-44,as er gm 3 664— �l l 5 / M - L/3 1 3 5+ i_-'5C) � 9r /5i crud -c/ciz .\A 5 ?`« 1 1 2k- 2 ti, •i .� _. , � cP y �-�1 cce,- -1, Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi lmprovemeni Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tat Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new :plan is keyed to the installation of a new, .state -of- .the -art microwave landing system. • -We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS 1 1 //, J i(Z5* 3(4- , • /1C, tU2 4 ZIP CODE I VIA M-) 1W. ./" PI /0(.7 cJ / __�C.,i�.7 (. tt. kJ- ,t_d.c': x•e_7 //L .J /.4/ :.i • 7 (-.ckt 7(,.;.j. ,—eL. ,/./c - , /. 4.c / JJ • • •J ! yl C. M*% .5 7 Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$)Seattle, WA 981by March ••:.•18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new 'plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Hay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. • 'NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE 4 11 Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSpeattle, WA 981 itby March 18, 1992. ZI • • r: • Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$Seattle, WA 981 *by March 18, 1992. • • PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal. Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. • .We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE 2 � ate,- ct ��� `w(44.( 3- 8 14.3 ,3151".3‘7,-,- 7$ ) it ii • • • Or •. 6 7 •8 9 :10 • Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$Seattle, WA 981 Rby March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea-Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Ht. Baker neighborhood's, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn day's'. The new, plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state-of- the-art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAM 1 E A;r, i & 0avherr- 4- akialtr, e:21(1:0L/1,), 0 lb ADDRESS ZIP CODE -b_05 it 3s • 30Tri .ANc , s (44 1"10/ -o"� awr s 1'n/4 / o' .gp+ /61 3 o-rw, r4j re. 5 r ! .A Ab 233 Z I : Sewk-isle, a e/41 702/ SeATt 98 )2Z 9 -10 11 Send signed petitions to James Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA 981by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwaiish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS 7h4 6 7 21 0 .a/c e ?e/2..77 0 a 10 11 Send signed petitions to Jarnes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueSpeattle, WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. �-. 12,5* PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE 1 1�; L J • ? �vv�r��t�. ` . / ZL. ��` tc r 1 L� ' .:� (f =� t'i S Rif 3 J t. 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA .98422 by March 18, 1992. 4-tit '4.1Z(o PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay- Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE 9 •b6. Bee Ale.t 101-3--1911-11-( Send signed petitions to Jarnes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac .Field to send about 30.0 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods,, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the North flow -East Turn days. The an.e:w plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE r(r 3 -us 57-771S T g ' -1. ` a7 . _ . 1�1. $; 7S /i 4 e 3 r � 1 ?r ` i 5 J f� ! In-, l`. / ,j> I ;1- �;r- �1v ( Z. 6 (R Di r\ c3(1`c 1/1''(\)ES gt (44 3e72,0 mem4",_ q/2. 2_ --?30 C 6,.(Le 20 2y — 3 Y f S1 1 1 ktir, )\0. 1de e Send signed pe itions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st AvenueS,Seattle, WA 981 tiq by March 18, 1992. PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -East Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay - Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAME ADDRESS Z I P CODE 1 $4r J f-- /7C) 3� cc , 411 `f . �. I 3 ��7c(6 p--(c ' iz* Si 2 2. ‘ 5 t,tr° g / ---- r 4 'z- -' 6 i Z_S-2:3L_ ?-7/..Z,1 5 5 7' e. o 77 ,,z__ get o-1---2____ - 6 — (C 9 .K 7 i E'er... Cr& .9- i Z Z.. ii deg l ( ;6t PP:.' /6 '� 3-7 AleiLc .%i fh L r. U 1 0 11 Send signed petitions to Jaynes Leonard, Chairman, Aircraft Noise Committee, Leschi Improvement Council, 935 31st Avenue$ Seattle, WA 922'by March 18, 1992. `l ('ai PREVENT MORE AIRCRAFT NOISE The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to re- route the aircraft landing pattern for Sea -Tac Field to send about 300 airplanes a day directly over 3300 East, a flight path that adversely impacts the Madrona, Leschi, and Mt. Baker neighborhoods, which already already take a disproportionate share of aircraft noise during the Northflow -E-ast Turn days. The new plan is keyed to the installation of a new, state -of- the -art microwave landing system. We, the undersigned, protest the landing path. We believe that flight tracks should follow the less - populated water routes, such as the Elliot Bay- Duwamish River route that has been traditionally used for flight tracks. NAM 3_0 4 ADDRESS ZIP CODE --c)OKAAA so qei etg sb3 thpts: 9 4s- 'qv 5o3 3011/1A.a.s ?Via/ .•-°'•-- 5) 3 o s7 14 4 5 6 7 9 1C 11 Send signed petitions to Jaynes .Leonard, Chairman. Aircraft Noise Committee. Leschi Improvement Council, 935 3-1st Avenue$Seattle. "WA 98122 by March 18, 1992. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMENT LETTERS RESPONSES' SECTION 8 DRAFT EA COMMENT LETTER RESPONSES Introduction This section of the final environmental assessment presents responses to comments received during the public and agency comment period. The responses by the Federal Aviation Administration, are organized by subject category following the format in the Final Environmental Assessment. The source of each comment is identified by the individual or institutional submitter. Each submitter's letter is number in the order received in the previous section. In the text which follows, comments are identified as "C" and response are identified as "R ". Procedural Issues C1: Commentor 18 was concerned that the document may not have been available to persons overflown by the procedures. R1: The availability of the DEA was advertised in the Seattle Times, Valley Daily News, Highline Times, and the Des Moines News. The document was available at the Seattle City Public Library, and the Des Moines, Burien, and Valley View King County Library branches. C2: Commentor 18 questioned why no public hearing was planned. R2: No public hearing is required or deemed appropriate. C3: Commentor 22 asked why an EA was prepared. R3: FAA Order 1050. 1D, "Polices and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts" states that new instrument approach procedures which are conducted below 3,000 feet Above ground Level and establishment of a Microwave Landing System are projects subject to an environmental assessment. C4: Commentor 53 states that SEPA compliance is required by the Port of Seattle. R4: Since the proposed action as a federal one, the FAA need only comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Actions taken by the federal government are not subject to state environmental procedures. C5: Commentors 41, 45, and 53 requested that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared on the proposed action. R5: An environmental assessment provides our initial environmental review. If this evaluation indicates that there are significant 8.1 environmental impacts, then an environmental impact statement would be prepared. Introduction and Need and Purpose C6: Commentor 22 asked why departure routes are not being tested in the demonstration program. R6: Departure procedures were not evaluated in this study because MLS departure procedures would not reduce air traffic congestion and delays during poor weather conditions at SEA. C7: Commentor 22 asks why we are not using curved approaches. R7: Current MLS airborne technology does not permit curved approaches. Segmented and curved approaches are expected to be operational in coming years and potential use at •SEA will be evaluated when available. This proposed project is the first step in introducing the MLS technology into the aviation system. C8: Commentor 1 noted that the MLS Demonstration Program, mandated by the U. S. Congress, provided for nine projects. He wanted to know what other 8 were. R8: The FAA MLS Demonstration Program is designed to determine the economic and operational benefits of MLS. The program includes nine projects. The titles to the projects are as follows: :Project 1. Analysis of Available ILS Frequencies for Expansion of recision Approaches in the United States. Project 2. Evaluation of Wide -Body Curved Approaches :.project 3. Evaluation of Advanced Procedures in Multi- Airport Environments Project 4. Airport Benefits Analysis Project 5. Assessment of MLS Alternatives Project Sa. MLS /ILS Comparison Project Sb ILS Augmented with Area Navigation Systems Project 5c. GPS Role in Precision Approach Project 5d. Analysis of Synthetic /Enhanced Vision Systems Project 6. Assessment of MLS Avionics Cost 8.2 Project 7. Future CAT II /III Requirements Project 8. Precision DME (DME /P) Interrogator Development Project 9. MLS Avionics Certification Project number 4 is the project under which this proposed action is being considered. Project number 4 is the only project in the MLS Demonstration Program that requires the installation of MLS at various locations across the country. C9: Commentor 23 asks why Seattle was selected for this Demonstration project. C9: Please see Section 2, Need and Purpose. C10: Commentors 49 and 53 have questions about the delay and benefit calculations. R10: Delay is defined as the difference between constrained and unconstrained time. It is reasonable to assume that the delay will go to zero minutes for aircraft using the MLS -A approach. The "Airport Machine" computer model calculated 28 minute of delay for aircraft confined to a single approach stream of traffic aligned with 16R. The reason for this delay is congestion. The aircraft using the MLS -A procedure will be able to fly a separate approach, exempt from metering, as described in Appendix B. Therefore they will not be affected by congestion. The 28 minute delay per arrival used in the delay savings calculation in Appendix B is for delay accrued in VFR2 weather conditions, which is the window of weather for which the MLS -A procedure provides the benefit. The text of Appendix B has been modified to clarify this point. The average delay calculated in the Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan of June 1991 includes all weather conditions, therefore it is significantly lower than the delay figure used in Appendix B. Average delay information for 1993 and 1998 was not calculated, therefore it was not used in the calculation. Delay increases as the number of overall operations increase. Operations are forecast to increase in 1993 and 1998, therefore the average delay will increase. These delay calculations, therefore, underestimate the delay savings. Cll: Commentor 49 questions how reduction in delay for small aircraft impacts demand management incentives at the airport. R11: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee work has increased 8.3 the understanding of the importance of small aircraft to the aviation system. Commuter operation operations are required to support air carrier operation. This project works towards improving efficiency needed to support the mix of operations. Regarding demand management incentives, the Port of Seattle has not implemented demand management incentives, therefore there is no relationship to this project. C12: Commentor 53 asks for a calculation of frequency of weather conditions during times of congestion. R12: Weather conditions through out the Puget Sound region affect the utilization of any instrument procedure at SEA. In the case of the MLS -A procedure, weather conditions at SEA and BFI are critical. There is no weather data available that quantifies a relationship between weather conditions at SEA and BFI. Therefore looking at weather conditions at SEA during times of congestion is refinement of detail that would not necessarily increase the accuracy of the calculation. The average delay figure accounts for all levels of congestion and generalizes the weather condition. The weather condition, in which the benefits of the MLS -A procedure accrue, could be categorized as overcast. Local knowledge tells us that this weather condition occurs at all times of the day, unlike a fog phenomenon. The computer model used to estimate the average delay essentially assumes that the weather condition being analyzed occurs around the clock, which is a reasonable assumption. C13: Commentor 53 questions if the proposal will increase the airport's capacity. R13: The proposed action would increase the efficiency of operations at SEA, however it would not increase the number of aircraft operations at SEA. The proposed procedure is designed to expand the FAA's use of the existing airspace by reducing delays. It would increase the arrival rate of aircraft in VFR2 weather conditions. The maximum arrival rate which occurs in clear weather conditions would not impacted. The proposed action does not enhance the ground capacity. C14: Commentors 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 24, and 49 expressed concerns about the apparent difference in objectives between the MLS provisions in the Port of Seattle's Noise Mediated Agreement (noise reduction) and FAA's Microwave Landing System (MLS) Demonstration Program (increase in efficiency). R14: Section IV of the Noise Mediation Agreement states that the Port of Seattle will request that FAA designate Seattle - Tacoma International Airport (SEA) as a demonstration project 8.4 for the MLS. The FAA MLS Demonstration Program is designed to determine the economic and operational benefits of MLS, not to develop noise abatement procedures. However, as technology advances (curved and segmented approaches), with the MLS in place, other procedures could be developed to abate noise impacts. There is a potential for longer term benefits in noise reduction as well as short term efficiency benefits. The working group that reviewed the technical feasibility of installing MLS at SEA considered noise impacts and benefits in its analysis. The MLS -A track, with a 4.2 degree glide path, keeps the aircraft higher and essentially limits the usage to propeller driven aircraft only. Implementation of the proposed action should reduce delays and should not significantly increase the noise exposure as documented in the ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES SECTION of the Final Environmental Assessment. Alternatives C15: Commentors 1, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 47; 49, 50; 52, 54, and 55 suggested an alternate flight track over Lake Washington and stated that the FAA did not adequately consider this alternative. R15: None of the alternatives considered would exceed FAA's threshold of significance for increased noise exposure. FAA's threshold of significance is an increase of 1.5 DNL or greater on a noise sensitive area. Table 1 (Page 8.14) provides examples of land uses which may be noise sensitive. See ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES section for noise analysis results. Since none of the alternatives significantly impacts the environment, FAA selected the MLS track that would overfly the existing north -south corridor commonly subjected to overflights today. The work group selected the proposed action because it is most similar to existing flight tracks used by propeller driven aircraft, therefore Options 2 and 3 were not selected. C16: Commentor 5 was concerned that the MLS -16L approach procedure will become permanent and will be used by more and more jet aircraft. R16: The MLS -16L is no longer being proposed. If it is considered in the future, additional environmental review will be required. C17: Commentors 6 and 23 were concerned about actual flights 8.5 tracks deviating from flight tracks depicted in the EA. R17: It is not possible to define "flight paths or tracks" as rigid paths in the sky. The actual path that an aircraft will traverse will vary according to the effects of many factors such as: aircraft type (size, weight, speed, navigational equipment, etc.), instrument /visual meteorological conditions (wind direction and velocity, visibility, ambient air temperature), pilot technique, and operational procedures. Air Traffic considerations can also cause the assignment of aircraft to various arrival and departure routes other than those depicted in various publications which illustrate flight paths. Some of these variables are: airspace loading, aircraft type, local weather, enroute weather, runway closures, navigational aid outages, and workload balancing. The flight paths or tracks in MLS DEA are accurate in portraying the average routes taken by aircraft on an annual basis. In weather conditions that permit visual approaches, MLS equipped aircraft could approach runway 16L under instrument guidance, which is not possible today. The resulting benefit would be more precise ground tracks. C18: Commentor 6 suggested moving ILS -16R track to the west so it lies over I -5 corridor. R18: It is not technically possible to relocate the approach to ILS -16R over the I -5 corridor, because the approach must line up with the centerline of the runway and segmented and curved approaches are not feasible currently. C19: Commentor 7 stated that all alternatives were not evaluated on environmental criteria. C19: We concur with the commentor. Options 1, 4a, 5, and 6 were rejected for technical reasons therefore they are were not evaluated on environmental criteria. Option 4b was rejected because the benefits were minimal therefore it did not meet the objectives of the MLS Demonstration Program. The document has been revised to include environmental evaluation of options 2, 3, and 7. C20: Commentors 13, 39, 40, 43, 54, 55, and 56 believe that the most appropriate approach corridors to SEA from the north are over the Duwamish Industrial corridor and Puget Sound. R20: The working group did study options that would overfly the Duwamish Industrial Corridor. They were rejected on technical grounds. Any procedure that brings aircraft in from 8.6 the westside of the airport, requires two aircraft to perform a side -step maneuver to land the MLS traffic on 16R and the ILS traffic on 16L. There are no existing procedures for this complex dual side -step maneuver. Therefore these options were rejected. C21: Commentor 23 questions why Option 1 was not selected when Option 7 also contains the side -step maneuver. R21: See Response to comment 20. Option 7 allows for a single side -step maneuver to land the MLS traffic on 16L. The ILS traffic on 16R does not need to perform a side step maneuver. A single side -step maneuver is an existing operational procedures. C22: Commentor 53 asks whether alternatives evaluated could use the MLS equipment as it is proposed. R22: Options 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, and 7 could be used should the MLS system be installed as is proposed. However, Options 1 and 4a were determined to be operationally infeasible. Benefits derived from Option 4b were minimal therefore it was deleted from further consideration. See our response to comment 3 for rational for not selecting Options 2 and 3. Option 7 is the proposed action. C23: Commentor 53 asks what the system will cost. R23: The installation at Site A will cost approximately $625,000. This cost includes the equipment, along with the construction and installation costs. Affected Environment C24: Commentors 24 and 49 ask how the definition of the affected environment relates to the location and frequency of noise complaints relative to the 4 -Post plan. R24: The Affected Environment section of the draft EA presents an overview of local conditions as they exist today. The "4- post air traffic plan" is in operation and therefore is part of the existing condition. The purpose of an EA is to evaluate potential environmental impact' of a proposed action, not to respond to complaints. Aircraft that would use the proposed MLS approach are already overflying populated areas by using established approach procedures. This would be true with or with the "4 -post plan" or with or without the proposed MLS approach. 8.7 Environmental Consequences Noise C25: Commentors 11 and 13 expressed concerns about noise impacts in the vicinity of north Mercer Island and Medina. R25: The approximate changes in perceived noise levels at north Mercer Island (at Fabian Point) and at Medina (where the floating bridge crosses the west side of the island) from use of the proposed MLS -A approach versus the existing ILS -16R approach were calculated. Use of the MLS -A approach would place aircraft approximately 4500 feet closer to north Mercer Island and Medina. The change in single event noise levels from use of the MLS -A approach is approximately +3.5 dB at north Mercer Island and approximately +2.6 dB at Medina. These changes would barely be discernable, particularly given the background noise levels of those urbanized areas. Options 2 and 3 have been further evaluated regarding potential noise impacts (See Tables 7 through 10). We found that there is no significant difference between any of the alternatives evaluated. C26: 'Commentors ::24: and 44 state that the INM is inadequate for. -this noise analysis..,3 R26: The FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 3.9 is the state of the art computer model for determining noise exposure levels from aircraft operations. The INM is recognized world wide as the most accurate means to calculate aircraft noise exposure. Similarly, the DNL metric has been upheld consistently by numerous Federal Courts and is considered to be the best metric to evaluate community response to aircraft noise exposure. C27: Commentor 44 was concern that Tukwila was not considered' in the, grid point analysis.; R27: After reviewing the relative distances from the existing ILS -16R approach and the MLS -A approach to the "downtown" area of Tukwila, we note that the difference is less than 650 feet. Such as small difference would result in no discernable difference in perceived noise levels from either approach. This is particularly true given the very high and long hill that shields the "downtown" area from the flight paths. Based on the above, we conclude that there would be no significant change in noise levels in "downtown" Tukwila. C28: Commentor 49 was concerned that the Time -Above and Day - Night Noise Level (DNL) analysis indicates a noise increase rather than a noise reduction. R28: The noise analysis indicated that a number of grid point locations would experience small increases in DNL and small increases in time exposure for the noise levels analyzed. The DNL increases ranged between +.1 to +.6. These DNL increases are not considered significant increases. A significant increase is considered to be +1.5 DNL per FAA Order 1050.1D, "Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impact ". Increases in time above ranged between +.1 minutes (at 70 or 75 dBA) to +1.6 minutes (at 65 dBA). There is no standard or guideline for determining the "level of significant change" for the amount of time increase at a particular sound level when evaluating increases in time above exposure. Please review FAA response to Comment 15. C29: Commentor 49 asks about difference in population overflown at various altitudes on different approaches. R28: The variation in population that would be overflown by the feasible alternatives (Options 2, 3, and 7) occurs outside of the 65 DNL contour, because the flight tracks within the 65 DNL contour are essentially the same. No evaluation of population density of the options was undertaken. This consistent with FAA's environmental assessment procedures. C29: Commentor 53 questions the exclusive use of DNL contours to measure noise impacts. See response to comment number 26. Flight Track Utilization C30: Commentor 3 asked whether or not the proposed MLS procedures would have any effect on the instrument procedures serving King County International Airport (BFI). R30: The MLS installation will have no affect on the approach procedures at BFI. Not impacting operations at BFI was an objective of the FAA working group that developed the proposed action. C31: Commentors 4, 5, 20, 22, and 53 were concerned about turbojet aircraft using MLS approach procedures. R31: There are no turbojet aircraft forecast to use the MLS - A approach procedure because there are no turbojets authorized to fly a 4.2 degree glide path. FAA Order 8260.36 "Civil Utilization of Microwave Landing System" establishes standard MLS precision minimums for glide path angles and aircraft 8.9 types. Minimums are weather condition requirements established for a particular operation. This order only establishes minimums for Approach Category A and B aircraft (See Appendix C of listing of aircraft in these categories.) for a 4.2 degree glide path angle, as the MLS -A procedure will have. There are no turbojet aircraft in Approach Categories A and B. Therefore there will be no minimums established for turbojet aircraft. We have forecasted no turbojet aircraft using this procedure and believe that this is reasonable based on the restrictions in this order. C32: Commentor 24 requested identification of commuter and jet aircraft on flight tracks in Appendix F. R32: Appendix F has been modified. C33: Commentors 26, 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 47, 50, 52, and 54 expressed concern regarding 300 additional flights a day. R33:The MLS will not increase the number of operations at SEA. The MLS will redistribute the traffic from current flight usage slightly because some of the traffic will use the MLS flight track rather the tracks currently being used. We estimate that approximately 9 and 15 daily flights will use the MLS -A procedure on an average day in 1993 and 1998 respectively. The utilization of the MLS is limited due to operational constraints that are described in Section 5, Environmental Consequences. The MLS will not add or be utilized by an additional 300 flights a day. C34: Commentor 49 asks what type of aircraft will be MLS - equipped in the future. R34: See Appendix H for estimates of the percentage of MLS - equipped aircraft in the fleet. C35: Commentor 53 asks about the percentage of aircraft that are and will be MLS equipped and asked whether future environmental review will be conducted if larger jets are to use the MLS. R35: See Appendix H for estimates of the percentage of MLS - equipped aircraft in the fleet. We have assumed that no jet traffic would use the MLS -A procedure because of the steep glide path. If jets were to use the track, additional environmental review would be required. 8.10 Forecasts C36: Commentors 9 and 46 believe that the MLS installation will encourage increases in number of operations at the airport, and state the draft EA analysis of this issue is deficient. R36: The forecast of operational activity used in this document was based on the forecasts developed by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee ( PSATC). This is the latest substantial forecasting effort that has been conducted for SEA. All of the forecasts in this study are independent of airport capacity. They are based on forecasted demand, i.e. number of passengers. Therefore the forecast number of operations remains the same regardless of the airport's capacity. Any increase in the number of operations experienced at SEA will be the result of the demand of the flying public, which FAA does not control. The MLS will increase the airport's efficiency, however it will not encourage additional flights to come to SEA. C37: Commentors 49 and 53 ask if the forecasts in the EA consider PSATC study. R37: Yes, see response to comment 36. The PSATC forecast predicts a reduction in the commuter aircraft using SEA from 150,376 in 1990 to 139,859 in 1998. The use of the MLS -A procedure is forecast to be approximately 9 flights on an average day in 1993 and 15 flights in 1998. We have projected an increase commuter operations using the MLS -A, because we are forecasting an increased percentage of aircraft in the fleet that will be MLS - equipped. Electronic Emissions C38: Commentor 22 asks what is the date of FAA Order 3910.3A, and asked about the effect of electro- magnetic radiation. R38: FAA Order 3910.3A, "Radiation Health Hazard and Protection" is dated October 19, 1983. The text in Section 5, Paragraph B has been modified to include additional information regarding electro- magnetic radiation. Miscellaneous C39: Commentor 23 and 37 concerned about degradation of property values due to the project. R39: Any degradation of property values is speculative. 8.11 C40: Commentor 30 states that the DEA should address the proposal's impact on the airport's surface transportation. R40: The proposed action would have no impact on the airport's surface transportation because the proposed action will not increase the activity level at SEA. C41: Commentor 49 questions air quality impacts resulting from MLS operations. R41: The MLS will not impact the number of existing or forecast operations at the airport, therefore there will be no increase in emissions from the proposed action. The proposed action may benefit air quality because of the projected increase in efficiency and reduction of delay. The delay reduction may be achieved by reducing the time the aircraft needs to hold at its origination and by reduced time in the air. Because of the variable locations at which the delay reduction could actually occur, it is difficult to quantify the benefits to air quality. Relationship of MLS Demonstration Proiect to other projects at SEA C42: Commentors 9 and 46 suggest that the EA should have analyzed the relationship between MLS Demonstration Program, "Flight Plan" and the 4 -Post plan. R42: The MLS Demonstration Program is independent of other cited projects. The MLS operation will have no impact on the 4 -Post plan. "Flight Plan" is a aviation system planning process that is not completed. The installation of the MLS is not related to "Flight Plan" in any way. C43: Commentor 17 was concerned about additional flights due to potential third runway at SEA. R43: The MLS Demonstration Program is independent of any potential third runway project. The use of the MLS, together with a third runway at SEA, was not analyzed because the third runway project is still speculative. At this point, the third runway is being proposed as a segment of the multiple airport system being examined at a programmatic level in a system planning process. If a project level environmental document is prepared on the third runway proposal, any changes in the usage of the MLS would be addressed at that time. C44: Commentor 53 suggests that the FAA's MLS project should be environmentally assessed together with the numerous potential capacity enhancement measures discussed in the 8.12 •wg0* ), 1:nnAt .•+ o�»' YwWfMS 'yf.ri'YYIMI4JC *71tiC!,i3':?:2A irls Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan, June 1991, rather being "segmented out for individual review ". R44: The June 1991 plan evaluated a variety of potential airfield and airspace improvements to SEA solely from the prospective of their technical ability to increase capacity and reduce delays at the airport. The plan expressly stated that "Environmental , economic, social or political issues were beyond the scope of this study." The MLS project was not among the alternatives studied. Nor have any of the alternatives evaluated in the study, for which an environmental assessment would be required, yet been proposed for Federal approval to or by the Federal Aviation Administration. The "scope" of the MLS draft environmental assessment is consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.25], in that the MLS project 1) does not automatically trigger any of the June 1991 Plan alternatives, 2) can proceed without adoption of any of those alternatives, 3) is not interdependent part of an larger action dependent on that larger action for its justification. Since none of the June 1991 Plan alternatives which require an environmental assessment are reasonably foreseeable at this point in time, the cumulative impacts of the MLS project together with the June 1991 Plan alternatives is currently inappropriate for a single Federal environmental study. 8.13 PART 150 APPENDIX A 11 TABLE 1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY• WITH YEARLY DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS Land Use Yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) in Decibels Below Over 65 65 -70 70-75 75 -80 80 -85 85 Residential Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N N N Mobile home parks Y N N N N N Transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N(1) N N Public Use Schools Y N1)1 N(1) N N N Hospitals and nursing homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N N Governmental services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(4) Parking Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y 25 30 N N Wholesale and retail— building materials, hardware and farm equipment Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Retail trade — general Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N . Manufacturing And Production Manufacturing, general Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Photographic and optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture (except Iivestock) and forestry Y Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(8) Y(S) Livestock farming and breeding Y Y(6) Y(7) N N N Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Y Y Y Y Y Y Recreational Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y(5) Y(5) N N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N Golf courses, riding stables and water recreation Y Y 25 30 N N Numbers in parentheses refer to notes. • The designations contained in this table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal, State, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. KEY TO TABLE 1 SLUCM Standard Land Use Coding Manual. Y (Yes) Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions. N (No) Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25, 30, or 35 Land used and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR or 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure. vw,,rx.rIVPbtrtW.Inmwavg4WtNV NEVJvk m. c:wr..s.aat5r3Z'tnttVrtgrfagan X,VM1 t��i".°i' Artttg3*!s'a R; NOTES FOR TABLE 1 (1) Where the community determines that residen- tial or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be in- corporated into building codes and be considered in individ Jal approvals. Normal residential con- struction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dB over standard construc- tion and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. (2) Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be in- corporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (3) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be in- corporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (4) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be in- corporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (5) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (6) Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (7) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. (8) Residential buildings not permitted. COMPONENTS OP A MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM • APPENDIX A MLS SYSTEM ELEMENTS The standard MLS comprises an azimuth (AZ) station, an elevation (EL) station and precision distance measuring equipment (DME /P). Photographs of the typical components are attached. a. Azimuth Station The azimuth station transmits an electronic signal which provides a pilot of a properly equipped aircraft lateral alignment. The azimuth station transmits within the C -band frequency range of 5031 to 5091 MHz. The azimuth station consists of an approximately 8' X 10' X 9'6" high shelter with the antenna transmitting through a "window ". b. Elevation Station The elevation station transmits an electronic signal which provides the pilot of a properly equipped aircraft with vertical guidance. The elevation station transmits its guidance on the same frequency as the azimuth station. The elevation station is an approximately 8' X 10' X 12' high shelter with the antenna transmitting through a "window ". c. Precision Distance Measuring Equipment DME /P provides precision range information. It consists of a beacon transponder that operates in the L -band frequency range 962 to 1105 MHz. The DME consists of an approximately 12 inch diameter by 22 foot high antenna and a 5' X 5' x 7' high shelter. CALCULATION OF DELAY SAVINGS r Calculation of Delay Savings of the MLS -A Approach All of the quantifiable benefits calculated are based on assumptions and generalizations, therefore are only estimates. Quantifiable benefits would accrue in south flow when, without the MLS -A approach, the arrival stream would be limited to a single flow. At ceilings between 3000 and 5000 feet AGL and visibilities above 3 nautical miles, MLS equipped aircraft could conduct a parallel instrument approach. These weather conditions occur approximately 15% of the year. The 1993 forecast for MLS equipped aircraft (Dash 8's and Dorniers) serving SEA is an average 76 daily arrivals. Arrivals from the east, north, and approximately 50 percent from the south would be able to use the MLS -A approach, which is estimated to be 42 daily arrivals. The 1998 forecast for estimated daily arrivals that could use the MLS -A approach is 69. It is estimated that each arrival using the MLS -A approach would accrue a 28 minute (or a .47 hour) delay saving. This is based on the results of a computer simulation conducted on Airport Machine by the Port of Seattle. Using Airport Machine, a computer simulation model, the Port of Seattle estimated that Horizon Airlines experiences an average 28 minute average arrival delay during VFR2 weather conditions. Horizon Airlines' average delay figure was used because it is the only MLS- equipped airline currently flying into SEA. VFR2 weather conditions were because these are the weather conditions in which benefits would accrue. Delays are primarily a function of the weather conditions and the congestion. Actual delay experienced, during the weather conditions described above, may be greater than 28 minutes. However it is appropriate to use an average, because data of the percentage of time specific weather conditions prevail during congestion conditions are not available. Using an average considers the arrivals that experience both more and less delay than the estimated. To calculate the delay savings, it is assumed the aircraft using the MLS -A approach will experience no delay. The delay benefit accrues during the weather conditions that permit a dual arrival stream using the MLS -A approach where only a single arrival stream is permitted today. These aircraft would be exempt from metering. (Metering is a method of controlling the time an aircraft arrives at a position so that its arrival path to the airport can continue without delay.) Arrivals that are exempt from metering are assumed to be unimpeded by other traffic, etc., thus experience no delay. The delay savings is calculated by multiplying the number of daily arrivals that could the MLS -A approach by the percent of the year that the weather conditions prevail when delay benefits accrue. This number is multiplied by the average delay by arrival. The savings are determined by multiplying this time by the cost of operating an aircraft. The cost of operating an aircraft is $1440 (1989 dollars) per hour (Source: Seattle - Tacoma International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan, June 1991). The calculation is shown below. 1993 Delay savings =(42 arrivals /day) X (15 % of year) X (.47 hour /arrival) X (365 days /year) X ($1440 /hour) = $1.56 million/ year 1998 Delay savings hour /arrival) = (69 arrival /day) X X (365 days /year) X = $2.55 million/ year (15% of the year) X (.47 ($1440 /hour) LIST. OF APPROACH CATEGORY 929/89 Ac: uWW4A1-1i Appendix 13 Section 3. Listing Small Airplanes by Airport Reference Code (U.S. customary units) Aircraft Airport Appch Tail Maximum Reference Speed Wingspan Length Height Takeoff Code Knots Feet Feet Feet Lys Beech 'Baron B55 A -I 90 37.8 28.0 9.1 5,100 Beech Baron E55 A -I 88 37.8 29.0 9.1 5,300 Beech Bonanza A36 A -I 72 33.5 27.5 8•.6 3,650 Beech Bonanza B36TC A -I 75 37.8 27.5 8.6 3,850 Beech Bonanza F33A A -I 70 33.5 26.7 8.2 3,400 Beech Bonanza V35B A -I 70 33.5 26.4 6.6 3,400 Beech Duchess 76 A -I 76 38.0 29.0 9.5 3,900 Beech Sierra 200 -B24R A -I 70 32.8 25.7 8,2 2,750 Beech Skipper 77 A -I 63 30.0 24.0 6.9 1,675 Beech Sundowner 180 -C23 A -I 68 32.8 25.7 8.2 2,450 Cessna -150 A -I 55 32.7 23.8 8.0 1,600 Cessna -177 Cardinal A -I 64 35.5 27.2 8.5 2,500 DHC -2 Beaver A -I 50 48.0 30.3 9.0 5,100 Embraer -820 Navajo Chief A -I 74 40.7 34.6 13.0 7,000 Lapan XT -400 A -I 75 47.9 33.5 14.1 5,555 Learfan 2100 A -I 86 39.3 40.6 12.2 7,400 Mitsubishi Marquise MU -2N A -I 88 39.2 39.5 13.7 11,575 Mitsubishi Solitaire MU--2P A -I 87 39.2 33.3 12.9 10,470 Partenavia P.68B Victor A -I 73 39.3 35.6 11.9 6,283 Piaggio P -166 Portofino A -I 82 47.2 39.0 16,4 9,480 AJI Hustler 400 B -I 98 28.0 34.8 9.8 6,0'0 Beech Airliner C99 B -I 107 45.9 44.6 14.4 11,3C Beech Baron 58 B -I 96 37.8 29.8 9.8 5,500 Beech Baron 58P B -I 101 37.8 29.8 9.1 6,200 Beech Baron 58TC B -I 101 37.8 29.8 9.1 6,200 Beech Duke B60 B -I 98 39.2 33.8 12.3 6,775 Beech King Air B100 B -I 111 45.8 39.9 15.3 11,800 Beech King Air F90 B -I 108 45.9 39.8 15.1 10,950 Cessna Citation I B -I 108 47.1 43.5 14.3 11,850 Cessna -402 Businessliner B -I 95 39.8 36.1 11.6 6,300 Cessna -404 Titan B -I 92 46.3 39.5 13.2 8,400 Cessna -414 Chancellor B -I 94 44.1 36.4 11.5 6,785 Cessna -421 Golden Eagle B -I 96 41.7 36.1 11.6 7,450 Embraer -121 Xingu B -I 92 47.4 40.2 15.9 12,500 Embraer -326 Xavante B -I 102 35.6 34.9 12.2 11,500 Foxjet ST -600 -8 B -I 97 31.6 31.8 10.2 4,550 Hamilton Westwind II STD B -I 96 46.0 45.0 9.2 12,495 Mitsubishi MU -2G B -I 119 39.2 39.5 13.8 10,800 Piper 31 -310 Navajo B -I 100 40.7 32.7 13.0 6,200 Piper 400LS Cheyenne B -I 110 47.7 43.4 17.0 12,050 Piper 60 -602P Aerostar B -I 94 36.7 34.8 12.1 6,000 Rockwell 690A Turbo Comdr. B -I 97 46.5 44.3 14.9 10,300 Swearingen Merlin 3B B -I 105 46.2 42.2 16.7 12,500 Swearingen Metro B -I 112 46.2 59.4 16.7 12,500 Volpar Turbo 18 B -I 100 46.0 37.4 9.6 10,280 Aerocom Skyliner A -II 88 54.0 54.3 16.5 12,500 Antonov AN -14 A -II 52 72.1 37.2 15.2 7,607 Antonov AN -28 A -II 88 72.1 42.6 16.1 12,350 Beech E18S A -II 87 49.7 35.2 9.5 9,300 263 AC 150/5300 -13 Appendix 13 929/89 Airport Appch Tail Maximum Reference Speed Wingspan Length Height Takeoff Aircraft Code Knots Feet Feet Feet Lbs By -2A Mk.3 Trislander A -II 65 53.0 45.7 14.2 10,000 DHC -6 -300 Twin Otter A -II 75 65.0 51.7 19.5 12,500 DH.104 Dove 8 A -II 84 57.0 39.2 13.3 8,950 Dornier DO 28D -2 A -II 74 51.0 37.4 12.8 8,855 Nomad N 22B A -II 69 54.0 41.2 18.1 8,950 Nomad N 24A A -II 73 54.2 47.1 18.2 9,400 Pilatus PC -6 Porter A -II 57 49.7 37.4 10.5 4,850 PZL -AN -2 A -II 54 59.8 41.9 13.1 12,125 PZL -M -15 Belphegor A -II 62 73.6 41.9 17.6 12,465 Yunshu -11 A -II 80 * 55.7 39.4 15,1 7.150 Beech King Air C90 -1 B -II 100 50.2 35.5 14.2 9,650 Beech Super King Air B200 B -II 103 54.5 43.8 15.0 12,500 Cessna -441 Conquest B -II 100 49.3 39.0 13.1 9,925 Rockwell 840 B -II 98 52.1 42.9 14.9 10,325 Rockwell 980 C -II 121 52.1 42.9 14.9 10,325 * Approach speeds estimated. Section 4. Listing Large Airplanes by Airport Reference Code (U.S. customary units) Aircraft Airport Appch Tail Maximum Reference Speed Wingspan Length Height Takeoff Code Knots Feet Feet Feet Lbs :,)attiale SN 601 Cory. B -I 118 42.2 45.4 _ 13.9 14,550 .;..:.sault FAL -10 B -I 104 42.9 45.5 15.1 18,740 Gates Learjet 28/29 B -I 120 43.7 47.6 12.3 15,000 Mitsubishi Diamond MU -300 B -I 100 43.5 48.4 13.8 15,730 Piaggio PD -808 B -I 117 43.3 42.2 15.8 18,300 Rc:.kwel1 Sabre 40 B -I 120 44.5 43.8 16.0 18,650 R swell Sabre 60 B -I 120 44.5 48.3 16.0 20,000 Gaes Learjet 24 C -I 128 35.6 43.3 12.6 13,000 Gates Learjet 25 C -I 137 35.6 47.6 12.6 15,000 Gates Learjet 54 -55 -56 C -I 128 43.7 55.1 14.7 21,500 HFB -320 Hansa C -I 125 47.5 54.5 16.2 20,280 HS 125 Series 400A C -I 124 47.0 47.4 16.5 23,300 HS 125 Series 600A C -I 125 47.0 50.5 17.2 25,000 HS 125 Series 700A C -I 125 47.0 50.7 17.6 24,200 IAI 1121 Jet Comdr. C -I 130 43.3 50.4 15.8 16,800 IAI -1124 Westwind C -I 129 44.8 52.3 15.8 23,500 Rockwell Sabre 75A C -I 137 44,5 47.2 17 2 23,300 Gates Learjet 35A/36A D -I 143 39.5 48.7 12.3 18 300 Casa C- 212 -200 Aviocar A -II 81 62.3 49.8 20.7 16,976 Dassault 941 A -II 59 76.7 77.9 30.7 58,400 DH.114 Heron 2 A -II 85 71.5 48.5 15.6 13,500 Dornier LTA A -II 74 * 58.4 54.4 18.2 15,100 GAC -100 A -II 86 70.0 67.3 24.9 28,900 IAI Arava -201 A -II 81 68.6 42.7 17.1 15,000 LET L -410 UVP -E A -II 81 65.5 47.5 19.1 14,109 PZL -AN -28 A -II 85 72.4 42.9 16.1 14.330 264 9/29,89 Aircraft Aerospatiale NORD -262 Ahrens' AR 404 Air -Metal AM -C 111 BAe Jetstream 31 Beech Airliner 1900 -C Cessna Citation II Cessna Citation III Dassault FAL -20 Dassault FAL -200 Dassault FAL -50 Dassault FAL -900 Embraer -110 Bandeirante FMA IA -50 Guarni II Fokker F -28 -1000 Fokker F -28 -2000 Grumman Gulfstream I Rockwell Sabre 65 Shorts 330 Shorts 360 VFW- Fokker 614 Canadair CL -600 Grumman Gulfstream III Lockheed 1329 JetStar Rockwell Sabre 80 Grumman Gulfstream II Grumman Gulfstream II -TT Grumman Gulfstream IV Lockheed SR -71 Blackbird AIDC /CAF XC -2 Antonov AN -72 DHC -4 Caribou DHC -7 Dash 7 -100 DHC -8 Dash 8 -300 Fairchild C -121 HP Herald Ilyushin I1 -12 MAI -QSTOL MDC -DC -3 Aeritalia G -222 Antonov AN -24 Antonov AN -30 AW.660 Argosy C.Mk.1 BAe 146 -100 BAe 146 -200 Casa C -207A Azor Convair 240 Convair 340 Convair 440 Convair 580 Dassault Mercure DHC -5D Buffalo Airport Reference Code B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II B -II C -II C -II C -II C -II D -II D -II D -II E -II A -III A -III A -III A -III A -III A -III A -III A -III A -III A -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III Appch Speed Wingspan Length Knots Feet Feet 96 98 96 99 120 * 108 114 107 114 113 100 92 101 119 119 113 105 96 104 111 125 136 132 128 141 142 145 180 86 89 77 83 90 88 88 78 85 72 109 119 112 113 113 117 102 107 104 106 107 117 91 * 71.9 66.0 63.0 52.0 54.5 51.7 53.5 53.5 53.5 61.9 63.4 50.3 64.1 77.3 77.3 78.3 50.5 74.7 74.8 70.5 '61.8 77.8 54.4 50.4 68.8 71.7 77.8 55.6 81.7 84.7 95.6 93.0 90.0 110.0 94.8 104.0 100.3 95.0 93.8 95.8 :6.4 115.0 86.4 86.4 91.2 91.8 105.3 105.3 105.3 100.2 96.0 63.3 52.7 55.2 47.2 57.8 47.2 55.5 56.3 56.3 60.8 66.3 49.5 48.8 89.9 97.2 75.3 46.1 58.0 70.8 67.5 68.4 83.1 60.4 47.2 79.9 79_9 87.8 107.4 65.9 84.7 72.6 80.7 84.3 75.8 75.5 70.0 98.4 64.5 74.4 77.2 80.1 89.1 85.8 93.7 68.4 74.7 81.5 81.5 81.5 114.3 79.0 Tail Height Fee t 20.4 19.0 21.0 17.5 14.9 15.0 16.8 17.4 17.4 22.9 24.8 16.5 19.1 27.8 27.8 23.0 16.0 16.2 23.7 25.6 20.7 24.4 20.4 17.3 24.5 24.5 24.4 18.5 25.3 27.0 31.8 26.2 24.6 34.1 24.1 30.5 32.8 23.5 32.0 27.3 27.3 27.0 28.3 28.3 25.4 26.9 28.2 28.2 29.2 37.3 28.7 AC 150/5300 -13 Appendix 13 Maximum Takeoff Lb s 23,480 18,500 18,629 14,550 16,600 13,300 22,000 28,660 30,650 37,480 45,500 13,007 15,700 65,000 65,000 36,000 24,000 22,900 26,453 44 000 41,250 68,700 43,75C 24,500 65,300 65,300 71.780 170,000 27,500 66,000 28,500 43,000 41,100 60,000 43,000 38,000 85,300 25,200 61,700 46,305 51,040 97,000 74,600 88,250 36,400 41,790 49,100 49,100 54,600 124,500 49,200 265 1.moD300 -13 Appendix 13 Aircraft DH.106 Comet 4C Fairchild1H -227 B,D Fairchild F -27 A,J Fokker F -27 -500 Fokker F -28 -6000 Hindustan HS.748 -2 HS.748 Series 2A HS.780 Andover C.Mk.1 Kawasaki C -1 Martin -404 MDC -DC -4 MDC- DC -6A /B Nihon YS -11 Aerospatiale SE 210 Carey Airbus A- 320 -100 Antonov AN -26 AW.650 Argosy 220 BAC 111 -200 l'-..0 111 -300 BAC 111 -400 BAC 111 -475 BAc 146 -300 Basing 727 -100 ding 727 -200 1. :e:.ng 737 -100 i.:.g 737 -200 eing 737 -300 7,ing 737 -400 :oeing 737 -500 Fairchild C -119 kokker F -28 -3000 Fokker F -28 -4000 HS.121 Trident lE HS.121 Trident 2E HS.801 Nimrod MR Mk.2 Lockheed 188 Electra Lockheed P -3 Orion MDC -DC -9 -10/15 MDC- DC -9 -20 MDC- DC -9 -30 MDC- DC -9 -40 MDC- DC -9 -50 MDC- DC -9 -80 MDC- DC -9 -82 Tupolev TU -124 Vickers VC -2- 810/840 Yakovlev YAK-40 Yakovlev YAK -42 BAC 111 -500 BAC /Aerospatiale Concord HS.121 Trident 3B 266 Airport Reference Code B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III B -III • C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III C -III D -III D -III D -III Appch Speed Wingspan Knots Feet 108 105 109 102 113 94 94 100 118 * 98 95 108 98 127 138 121 123 129 128 137 135 121 125 138 137 137 137 139 140 * 122 121 121 137 138 125 * 123 134 134 124 127 129 132 132 135 132 * 122 128 * 128 * 144 162 143 115.0 95.2 95.2 95.2 82.3 98.4 98.5 98.2 100.4 93.3 117.5 117.5 105.0 112.5 111.3 95.8 115.0 88.5 88.5 88.5 93.5 86.4 108.0 108.0 93.0 93.0 94.8 94.8 94.8 109.3 82.3 82.3 95.0 98.0 114.8 99.0 99.7 89.4 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 107.8 107.8 83.8 94.0 82.2 112.2 93.5 83.8 98.0 9)29/89 Tail Maximum Length Height Takeoff Feet Feet Lbs 118.0 29.5 162,000 83.1 27.5 45,500 77.2 27.5 42,000 82.3 29.3 45,000 97.2 27.8 73,000 67.0 24.8 44,402 67.0 24.8 44,490 78.0 30.1 50,000 95.1 32.9 85,320 74.6 28.7 44,900 93.9 27.9 73,000 105.6 29.3 104,000 86.3 29.5 54,010 105.0 28.6 114,640 123.3 39.1 145,505 78.1 28.1 52,920 86.8 27.0 93,000 93.5 24.5 79,000 93.5 24.5 88,500 93.5 24.5 87,000 93.5 24.5 98,500 104.2 28.1 104,000 133.2 34.3 169,000 153.2 34.9 209,500 94.0 37.2 110,000 100.2 37.3 115,500 109.6 36.6 135,000 119.6 36.6 150,000 101.8 36.6 133,500 86.5 27.5 77,000 89.9 27.8 73,000 97.2 27.8 73,000 114.8 27.0 135,500 114.8 27.0 144,000 126.8 29.7 177,500 104.6 33.7 116,000 116.8 33.8 135,000 104.4 27.6 90,700 104.4 27.4 98,000 119.3 27.8 110,000 125.6 28.4 114,000 133.6 28.8 121,000 • 147.8 30.3 140,000 147.8 30.3 149,500 100.3 50.0 80,482 85.7 26.8 72,500 65.9 21.3 35,275 119.3 32.2 117.950 107.0 24.5 104,500 205.4 37.4 408,000 131.2 28.3 150,000 ti 9R9/S9 Aircraft Airport Reference Code ,HS.121 Trident Super 3B D -III Tuoolev TU -134 D -III Tuoolev TU -144 E -III Boeing YC -14 A -IV Lockheed 1649 Constellat'n A -IV Boeing C97 Stratocruiser B -IV Bristol Brittania 300/310 B -IV Ilyushin I1 -18 B -IV Ilyushin I1 -76 B -IV Lockheed 1049 Constellat'n B -IV Lockheed 749 Constellat'n B -IV MDC -DC -7 B -IV Vickers Vanguard 950 B -IV Aerospatiale,C 160 Trans. C -IV Airbus A- 300 -600 C -IV Airbus A- 300 -B4 C -IV Airbus A- 310 -300 C -IV Antonov AN -10 C -IV Antonov AN -12 C -IV Boeing 707 -100 C -IV Boeing 707 -320 C -IV Boeing 707 -320B C -IV Boeing 707 -420 C -IV Boeing 720 C -IV Boeing 720B C -IV Boeing 757 C -IV Boeing 767 -200 C -IV Boeing 767 -300 C -IV Boeing E -3 C -IV Canadair CL -44 C -IV Dassault 1150 Atlantic C -IV Lockheed 100 -20 Hercules C -IV Lockheed 100 -30 Hercules C -IV Lockheed 1011 -1 C -IV Lockheed 1011 -100 C -IV Lockheed 1011 -200 C -IV Lockheed 1011 -600 C -IV Lockheed 400 C -IV Lockheed C -141A Starlifter C -IV Lockheed C -141B Starlifter C -IV Marshall (Shorts) Belfast C -IV MDC- DC -10 -10 C -IV MDC- DC -8 -10 C -IV MDC -DC -8- 20/30/40 C -IV MDC- DC -8 -50 C -IV MDC- DC -8 -62 C -IV Tupolev TU -114 C -IV Vickers VC -10 -1100 C -IV Vickers VC -10 -1150 C -IV Boeing 707 -200 D -IV Boeing 777 D -IV Appch Tail Speed Wingspan Length Height Knots Feet Feet Feet 146 98.0 131.2 28.3 144 95.2 121.5 30.0 178 94.8 212.6 42.2 89 129.0 131.7 48.3 89 150.0 116.2 23.4 105 141.3 110.3 38.3 117 142.3 124.2 37.5 103 122.7 117.8 33.3 119 165.7 152.8 48.4 113 123.0 113.6 24.8 93 123.0 95.2 22.4 110 127.5 112.3 31.7 119 118.0 122.9 34.9 124 131.3 106.3 38.7 135 147.1 177.5 54.7 132 147.1 175.5 55.5 125 144.1 153.2 52.3 126 124.8 121.4 32.2 127 124.8 109,0 34.6 139 130.8 145.1 41.7 139 142.4 152.9 42.2 136 145.8 152.9 42.1 132 142.4 152.9 42.2 133 130.8 136.2 41.4 137 130.8 136.8 41.2 135 124.8 155.3 45.1 130 156.1 159.2 52.9 130 156.1 180.3 52.6 137 145.9 153.0 42.0 123 142.3 136.8 38.4 130 * 122.7 104.2 37.2 137 132.6 106.1 39.3 129 132.6 112.7 39.2 138 155.3 177.7 55.8 140 155.9 177.7 55.8 140 155.3 177.7 55.8 140 * 142.8 141.0 53.0 121 * 119.7 97.8 38.1 129 159.9 145.0 39.3 129 159.9 168.3 39.3 126 158.8 136.4 47.0 136 155.3 182.3 58.4 131 142.4 150.8 43.3 133 142.4 150.8 43.3 137 142.4 150.8 43.3 124 148.4 157.5 43.4 132 * 167.6 177.5 50.0• 128 146.2 ,158.7 39.5 138 146.2 171.7 39.5 145 130.8 145.1 41.7 145 155.0 •181.5 44.8 AC 150/5300 -13 Appendix 13 Maximum Takeoff Lb s 158,000 103 600 396 000 216,000 160,000 145,800 185,000 134,640 374,785 137,500 107,000 143,000 146,500 108,596 363,763 330,700 330,693 121,500 121,500 257,340 312,000 336,6('1 312,00. 229,300 234,300 255,000 315,000 350,000 325,000 210,000 100,000 155,000 155,000 430,000 466,000 466,000 264,000 84,000 316,600 343,000 230,000 443,000 276,000 315,000 325,000 350,000 361,620 312,000 335,100 257,340 380,000 67 DEFINITIONS OF WEATHER CONDITIONS DEFINITIONS OF WEATHER CONDITIONS • VFR 1 - Ceiling (the height of clouds, smog, etc. above ground) is at least 5,000 feet, and visibility at least 5 miles. These conditions prevail about 56% of the time on an annual basis. • VFR 2 - Ceiling is between 2,500 and 4,999 feet, and visibility more than 3 miles. These weather conditions occur about 19% of the time. • IFR 1 - Ceiling is between 650 and 2,499 feet, and visibility more than 1,800 feet Runway Visual Range (RVR) . IFR 1 conditions occur about 18% of the time. • IFR 2 - Ceiling is below 650 feet and visibility is more than 1,200 feet RVR. IFR 2 conditions occur about 5% of the time. • IFR 3 - Ceiling is zero, visibility is less than 1,200 feet RVR. IFR 3 conditions occur about 2% of the time. VFR 1 VFR 2 IFR 1 IFR 2 IFR 3 TOTAL Southflaa 33 15 14 5 2 69 TABLE Operational Use % Northf laa Total 23 56 4 19 4 18 0 5 0 5 31 100 APPENDIX E. MEASURES OF SOUND MEASURES OF SOUND A person's ability to perceive a specific sound depends upon its ;; '1 ":t l rude and character, as r' i r-.. - =nria :: _ad _-tm te and characters of all the other sounds in the environment. A number of qualitative descriptions may be used to describe the subjective attributes of a sound, such as: - Magnitude - Broadband fr=equency content - Discrete frequency content - intermixing of pure tones - Time variation - Duration - loud or faint - high pitched hiss or low rumble - tonal or broadband - harsh or melodic - intermittent, fluctuating, steady or impulsive - long cr short Conventional measures of sound attempt to determine its magnitude with respect to human perception, especially trying to account for the fr °_ _uency response - characteristics of the ear, and =eo_'ndari lv to the time intea=a_icn characteristics of the ear. Sut, they do not account for most of the other subjective attributes. These are difficult to measure individually, and it is even more difficult to combine them in a single measure. However, one or more of these attributes may be important in enabling a human to Derce1ve a specific sound; for example, an intermittence impulsive "rat-tat-tat" is more easily distincuishable than a steady sound. To account for these attributes, which are not =-==41y measured, some noise rating scat =s have defined pe nalties t:: =t are applied to the measured :T=en itude of the sound to increase or decrease its value. Xa,nitude The unit used to measure the matni tude c= sound level. is the decibel (d3) . In the phrase, "The Sound 1= 7=1 is so many its use is analogous to the use cf "inch" in the Phrase, "_he length is so m , v inches" or to "degree" in the nh =aas° "The temperature on the r =1 Pius scale is so many degrees." However, unlike the Scales of length and temperature, which are linear scales, the sound 1=v=1 scale is logarithmic. By definition, therefore, the 1=v=1 ci a sound which has 10 times the mean square sound i___z.oure cf t::= reference sound is 10 decibels greater than the reference sound, and one which has 100 times (or 10 x 10) the mean square sound pressure of the reference sound is 20 d3 greater (10 + 10 d3).* * For measurement of sound pressure, sound pressure level is • defined as 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the measured mean square_ sound pressure to the square of a specified reference sound pressure. 1. This use of a logarithmic scale for sound is convenient because sand pressures of normal interest extend over a range of 10 million to 1. Since the mean square sound pressure is _ -� _ •�r t Tonal to the square of sound pressure, it extends over a tv _cal range of 100 million million (a 100 trillion) to 1. This ..,c= number, 100 trillion (or 10,000,000,000,000, with 14 zeros of .__ the 1) is much more conveniently represented on the logarithmic scale as 140 d3 (14 x 10) . Figure 1 further iilustratss the relationships among the pressure scale, _ur =- squared scale, and the dccib•cl seal=. Th.= ,'c= of the locarithr,iic deem =1 so=le r =quires somewhat dir- ._r =nt arithmetic than we are accustomed to using witn linear a1=s. For example, if two S'mi1ar b'lt indeoendent noise s= -_-=s operate simultaneously, the measured mean square sound • ur= from the two sources will add together to give a value _ ice that which would result from either source coerating alone. • resulting sound pr_S_'.Ir= l _': =l in decibels from the combined �.._ =s will be cnly~3 d3 h;c __ than the l_ el produced by -i h =r source alone sine t. -= logarithm 0= 2 is 0.3 and 10 times 0,3 is 3. In other words, if we have two sounds of different ma:nitude from i nde-oendcnt s '' - s then the level cf the .sum ,;i 11 never be more than 3 d3 a_^.C"? t^= level croduced by the • rate_ source alone. If the to sound sources Produce 11s that are Ci ffer =at by 10 d3 or more, then adding the two together Produces a level that is not c_cni =_cantly different from that produced by the greater source operating alone, as illustrated in Figure 2. Two sounds which have the s=m= sound pressure level may "sound" quite different (i . e. , a rumble vr s'.:s a hiss) because cf :fig distributions of souni =--ray in the audible frequency _. _ = . The distribution of s ; . ^:d e-i cy as a _unction of f== _' _.' is termed the "frequency spectrum" (see Figure 3 fcr an ex ample) . The spectrum is imoortant to the measurement C_ the maonitude of sounds be -= =e t: : human _a_ is more sensitive to _- , -:?rs at some __e • =nci e3 than at others. For _xa mole, the ..u-an ea_ hears best in the f re ency range of 1000 to 5,000 cycles per second (or Hertz) thee at v ='"y much lower cr h i a _- _ ' frequencies. L._ 3. Tn =r="e, in ord=- _ to C3 :'I ==rmina tn? mB�1 tllC= cf a sound on a scale that i roperti a its magnitude a is p- _ on 1 to t.s magai� as perceived by a human, it is re_; =ssarY to weiaht that part of the sound energy spectrum humans h==r most ==sily more heavily when adding up the total sound magnitude as perceived. Figure 4 illustrates this concept of wei_hting the physical sound soectrur to account for the frequency responses of the human ear. "enc v Weichtinc Scientists who work in acoustics have attempted for many years to find the ideal method to weicht the frequency spectrum just es toes the human ear. These atteots have produced many different 2. 4 1 Ct'.C�X,X3 1 10,00,. 1.CE -"C -- 1.02C. 0 — For 5swa:..7 0•+: :21001 :; ; l:.00 Arc. 10 LN 11 0 .l 100 1— 1— Safe DS.. =LS Pressure T ersi - 10 L:; :here p^ is the reference pressure cf 20 =2...... ne:...ns per square ceter 0— Fig. 1. The logarithmic Nature of the Decibel Source: Transportation Noise and its Control, J.S. Department of Transportation, 1972 (DOT- P5630.1) 3 . P pt C9 1 x/ — Li' — t 1 0 Scv4rel Sate S3.e Co r+b;raticrt of So_m s No.1 sny tic.? d h!rni::,1e cf Very Different M.tYni:u_e Fig. 2. Example Of the Change on the Decibel Scale Resulting Froth Adding the 24ean Square Values of Two Sounds Together Source: Transportation Noise and its Control, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1972 (DOT -? -5630.1) 4. 1 J• • 0 1 •Q • 0 u 0 Frequency spectrum of the sound (a different level exists ct each part of the spectrum) The ccoustic energy cross the spectrt.rm odds t give the cver:I1 sound pressure level (c sir :le number) 1 1 1 \\\\\ 31.5 63 125 2E0 500 1,X 2,000 4.003 5.000 Cetev. Eor Canter ;re;u.nc./ in Cycles per Second (;: :) Piano 1 Sale 1045.4 (2 0 :avts above t.1iJdie C) Fig. 3. Example of a Frequency Spectrum of a Sound • Source: Noise in ..::,erica, The Extent of the Noise Problem, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1981 (EPA Report 550/9 -31 -101) 5. C 0.0 O p0 Q;72/7"---\ • SovrC sornrum. %r 5a 1 =, S t.=. 5. 10.0:X) Fig. A.. Weighting the Measured Spectrum to Account for the Freczuency . Response of the Human Ear Source: Noise in America, The Extent of the Noise Problem, U.S. Environmental Pro.tectio,n.Agency, September 1961 (EPA Report 550/9 -81 -10,1) 6. 4 scales of sound measurement, including A-weighted sound level (and also 9, C, D, and ..- weighted sound levels), perceived noise le-:el, and loudness. A- weighting, which was developed in the 1930's _`cr use in a sound level meter, accomplishes the weighting by an electrical netwcrk which works in a manner similar to the bass and treble controls on a hi -fi set. A- weichting has been used extensively throughout the world to measure the magnitudes of sounds of all types. .Because of its universality, it was adopted by E ?A and other government agencies for the description of sounds in the environment. A newer weighting, such as the D or E weightings which are based cn the __search leading to the perceived noise level scale, might, eventually supplant A- weighting as the universal method. ^ut until cne of these newer scales is in common use and its superiority over A- weighting for measurement cf environmental sounds is demonstrated, A- weighting is expected to dominate. Th.. e o value on the A- weighLed sound 1 °eve c ^aln (sound level, for s;.cr t) is the reference pressure of 20 micro - newtons oe s cuare .;pe=er. This value was s 1ected because it apprcxi mate the smallest sound pressure that can be detected by a human. The overage sound l.eVel of a whir at a 1-meter distance from the ce-son who is whispering is 4+0 d3; the sound level of a normal voice sparing 1 meter away is 57 dB; a shout, 1 meter away, i -s 83 dB. Other examples of sound lev als are illustrated in Figure J. Tire Variation of Sound r ev =1 Ce -feral 1 , the maJni rude of sound in the environment varies in a randcrn fashion with time. There are many exceptions; for 1 e the sound of a waterfall ?' - o -, is Ste a^.��y with time, as is the sound -c= a room air conditioner when it is operating or the sound inside a car or airplane cruising at constant speed. But in most pla tes the outdoor sound is ever-changing ng i n maanitude, magnitude, because it is influenced by sounds from m.ny sources -- people, animals, many types of vehicles, near and f -r. In cne sense, the temporal variation o= the f: a:nitude of sound with time is analogous to the variation in shade (light to dark) ) in a picture or cn-'s surroundings. Similarly, the changing characteristics of the subjective attributes and frequency spectrum to the ear might be analogous to chance in color to the eye. It may be that the temporal changes in magnitude and character of the sound in the environment add richness to the human environmental experience, as do visual changes in intensity and color. Certainly the varying sounds of bird song and rustling leaves in the forest are more rewarding than tale utter silence that precedes a storm or the steady hum of a noisy ballast transformer in a fluorescent light. Changing patterns of normal sound make humans continually aware of life going cn 7. Examples of the Range of Common Bounds 0 0 O O P 0 0 O • c. O J V c =� O 0 o C U' I N 0 L- ' _ • o 110.1 t: 0 O 0 ,oio O O O 0 O O 1.. L 0 I F. L. r 5 O :' V O 0 0 >h p> v J` I� o 0 ., ` I 0 0.. `. ,* t: 0., 1,-) o o v 4. • C CQ 0 0 0` O o v` p O O O O C Q v • Q E u c 0 E o C C v. a c > j Fo `0 00 a c "- x c E -- ._ ... 0 o °' o o E .� c, o _� v o o° o >woo o ' 0 •o ° o o E E E o v"_ V V vc — o .- , o D_ 0 •- .° > 0 0 0 0 0 0 e `o g ti c ...-1:)D LVnGI- oV }4400.Zu.> w Vti't_ }� 1 v 0 C C v 0 I. 0 0 0_ 1 s s 0 C. 0. 0 E E `o L. v 0 C) 0 0 Cl e around then and assure them that all is w =11. However, if the fluctuation in magnitude of sound exceeds the range which is acceptable in a specific context, if the average sound level is high enough to interfere with speech or some other activity, or if a sound of unusual character or undesirable connotation is perceived, the subconscious feeling of well -being may be replaced with annoyance. it is generally easy to measure the continuously changing magnitude of the sound level. It may be displayed cn a graphic level recorder, in which a pen traces a line on a sheet of moving Doer, and the displacement of the pen is proportional to the sound level. Figure 6 illustrates two 8- minute samples of such a recording. Several features of these two samples should be note.'.. The first feature is that the sound level varies with time over a range of 33 d3, which is a ratio of 2000 to 1 in mean scua=e sound pressure. Second, in these two samples, the sound appears to be cheract="i7ed by a fairly steady -state lone_ leVel, u cn which a :e s'' 1.-i mposed the increased sound levels associated with discrete (individual) single events. This fairly constant lower level is often called the residual sound 1=:el. An example_ c.f residual sound is the continuous sound one :ears in the backyard at nicht, when no single source can be identified, so the sound seems to core from "all around." The • Early Afternoon 80 - Cars on Nearby Aircraft �r -Local Cars �] Boulevard Overflight7 / 70 - ; / Sports Standard . / 60 - / !<r ,.rte.• /LA k OA; _ L-Resicucl Noise Level 30 1 t t 1 1 1 f t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time in Minutes Late Evening 80 Intermittent Dog Barks 60 Local Car .0 30 0 Distant Cars Steady Scrking of Two Dogs . 041'4-71 Residual Noise Level —" 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 2 3 4 Time in Minutes 5 6 Fig. 6. Two Samples of Outdoor Noise in a Normal Suburban Neighborhood with the Microphone Located 20 Feet From the Street Curb 7 8 Source: Community Noise, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1971 (NTID 300.3) 10. - Cne way of accomplishing this simplifi cation is to measure the value of the residual sound level end the values of ...� i .� xrmu... sound 15 i 5.. =s.. S;=^4'":: J_. at various times during the day, using either a simple sound level meter or the continuous graphic level recording of its output. - Another method of quantifying the sound environment is to determine the statistical propeert1es of the sound level by attaching a statistical analyzer to the output of the sound level meter. This allows one to determine the amount of time that the sound level exceeds any stated sound level, or, conversely, the sound level which is exceeded for a stated percentage of the time. - A third method is to determine the value of a steady-state sound which has the same average vat _:e of A- weighted mean square sound pressure as that contained in the time-'v aryi no sound. This value is termed the -cuivalent Sound Level. Each c; these descriptors has its own sp a1 usefulness. -$s i dual and maximum sound levels are e`ci 1 y measured by a hand- h=1.3 sound level meter or a sophisticated computer -based monitoring system. However, such measurements give no indication of the duration of .the various single events, ncr a notion of the av = -ace "state" of the environment. The statistical method can be crudely accomplished by use of a hand -held sound level meter, but it is a time- consuming, tedious process, not very accurate in many cases. It is best accomplished with a sophisticated instrument cr monitoring system de =i ned for the purpose. It can give the complete detailed statistical distribution curve c= sound level versus time for any desired duration: for example, each hour of the day, daytime cr riahttime, or 24-hcur day. Such a curve is often a most useful reduction of the detail contained in the c=a^hic level recc=di n? although it eliminates all information about rspecific events. However, if a single value is required for convenience, it is necessary to make an arbitrary choice of a point (level and duration) on the curve, eliminating most cf the statistical information. The measurement of the Equivalent Sound Level may be approximated with a hand -held sound level meter; in this case, the problems are about the same as those encountered in a similar measurement of the statistical distribution. The Equivalent Sound Level, however, is best measured with an instrument or monitoring system designed specifically for this purpose. Such an instrument is called an Integrating Sound Level M =ter. It can provide :directly a single value for any desired duration, a value which includes all of the time- varying sound in the measurement period. As such, it is a more complete description than a single value of 11. 1 =yel and time taken from a statistical description. For example, if the "level which is exceeded 10% of the total time" is used as the descriptor of the time varying sound, its value rem, =iris constant and independent of the magnitudes of all higher level sounds as long es their durations are less than 10* of the total time. In contrast, these sounds of higher level are fully accounted for in the Equivalent Sound Level descriptor. The major virtue of the equivalent sound level is that its macnitude correlates well with the effects on humans that result from a wide variation in types of environmental sound levels and time patterns. It has been proved to provide good correlaticn bet;•; =en noise and speech interference_ and noise and risk of he =_ring less. It also is the basis for measure of the total outdoor noise environment, the Day /Night Sound Level, which c•: rr elates well with community reaction to noise and to the results cf social surveys of annoyance to ai rcraft noise. The Day/Night Sound Level is defined as the A- weighted equivalent sound 1 =ve1 for a 24-hour period with a 110 dB weighting applied to the equivalent sound levels measured during the nighttime hours of 10.00 p.m. to 7 :00 a.m. The nighttime weighting acts to increase the levels measured in nighttime by 10 dB. 'Hence, an v - rOn.e.. that has a measured daytime equivalent sound level Of 60 d3 and a measured nighttime equivalent sound level of 50 dB has a weighted nighttime sound level of 60 d3 (50 + 10) and a Day /Niche Sound Level of 60 dB. Example of measured Day; Niche Sound levels are given in Figure 7. Cha_acterizino Specific Sounds The sounds that combine to make environmental sound can be considered a collection ecti on of sounds from steady-state sources (such as transformers) and the sounds from time-varying single -event sources which occur at random or regular intervals (such as m +ovine vehicles), superimposed on a quasi- steady- state residual cr background level of sounds which indistinguishable. The descriptor of the steady -state sound is simply the A -'n _i ghted sound level and the duration of tale ev =nt. The descriptor for the time varying sounds associated with single events must include both magnitude and duration. One method is to measure the maximum sound level and the duration in which the sound level is above a stated number of decibels below the maximum level: for example, the number of seconds between the time that the sound rises from 10 d3.below maximum, to maximum, and falls again to 10 d3 below maximum. An alternative description, which produces a single value for the sound of the single event, is the Sound Exposure Level, the level of the total sound expospre at the microphone resulting from the event. These concepts are illustrated in Figure 8. 12. QUALITATIVE . DESCRIPTIONS ..- n,.».... w ... w...._........_........_....._._... w....... ..,`......swr..wamu.»+- +.nrrra. re, �nvro-mnx.^..Y .sa • Lda DAY —NIGHT . SOUND LEVEL' DECIBELS • - • OUTDOOR LOCATIONS —90— LOS ANGELES- �- . CITY NOISE —BC— (DOWNTOWN MOOR METROPOLIS) .HARLEM - 2nd FLOOR APARTMENT LOS ANGELES:- LOS ANGELES - 3rd FLOOR APARTMENT NEXT TO FREEWAY 3/4 MILE FROM TOUCH DOWN AT MAJOR AIRPORT DOWNTOWN WITH SOME CON- STRUCTION ACTIVITY VERY NOISY NOISY URBAN SUBURBAN • —70— • \ BOSTON - ROW HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE •.WATTS- 8 MILES FROM TOUCH DOWN AT • MAJOR AIRPORT NEWPORT -?.5 MILES FROM TAKEOFF AT . , : SMALL AIRPORT L0S ANGELES - 0LI RESIDENTIAL AREA • FILLMOR E - SMALL TOWN CUL -de -SAC SMALL TO NA• —'o .. SAN DIEGO - WOODED RESIDENTIAL QUIET SUBURBAN: y CALIFORNIA.- TOMATO FIELD ON FARM —40— Fig. 7. Examples of Outdoor Day/ Night Sound Level in dB (re: 20 micro - newtons per square meter) Measured at Various Locations Source: Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974 13. 10 d3 m. Maximum Sound Level Shaded Area in Which Energy is Sunned to Obtcin Tctol Energy for the Event - Sound Exposure Level Durction ct 10 A-7 Below Mcximum Residucl Level Time_ Fig. 8. Description of the Sound of a Single Event Source: Noise in America, The Extent of the Noise Problem, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1981 (EPA Report 550/9. -81 -101), 14. K=v Descriptors of Sound For the purpose of quantifying environmental sound in this discussion, four quantities listed in Table 1 are useful. All are based cn the A- weighting which accounts approximately for the frequency response of the human ear. All have logarithmic scales, all use the decibel (d3) as their unit, and all have the same magnitude of the reference sound pressure of 20 micron - r wtons per square meter. The sound level (L) in decibels is the quantity read on an orci-:ary sound level meter. It fluctuates with time following =_ tapir fluctuations in magnitude of the sound. Its maximum value (_.Tax) is one of the descriptors often used to characterize the Scun3 of an airplane flyby. However, Lmax only gives the maximum =onitude cf a sound - it does not contain any information on the duration of the sound. Clearly if two sounds have the same maxi m:;:n level the sound that le=ts lcnges t will generally cause mr`= e interference with human activity than does the one that lasts for a shorter time. o h of these factors are included in the concept of sound e :• :ocsure which adds up all of the sound occurring in a stated time oeriod or during a specific event. The logarithmic form - Sound =xocsure Level (SEL) - is re =d from integrating sound level mat. =rs and is the quantity that best describes the totality cf the noise from an airplane flyby. The equivalent sound level (Leg) is simply the log of the average value of the sound exposure during a stated time period. It is of :en used to describe sounds with respect to their potential for i n_ = =ring with human activity, e.c. , speech interference. A special form of Teo is the day-niche sound level (Ldn). Ldn is calculated by adding up all the sound exposure during daytime (0700-2200 hours) plus 10 times the Sound exposure occurring during the nighttime (2200-0700 hours) and a v erag i ng this total sum by the number of seconds during a 24 hour day. The in'.i1ti?lication factor of 10 a7-li=d to tom, nighttime sound exposure is often re= =- - =d to as applying a penal v of 10 d3 to noises that occur at night. The Ldn was developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in describing environmental noise and estimating its potential effects on humans. In 1930 a Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise published Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control. This committee included the U.S. Environmental. protection Agency, Department cf :sousing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, and the Veterans Administration. Its report classifies noise exposure as described by DNL as shown by Table 2. 15. •.� ., Tab e rincipal Descriptors of Environmental Sound syt • Quantity Abbreviation S. *� Level L Sound :xpcs.re Level - iv ?leant Sound Level Day/Night S__nd Level Le Lea Ldn Descriptor Kean square value of A- weighted sound pressure level at any time re: a refer- ence pressure. Tine integral of the mean square A-we.ight- ed sound pressure re .a mean square refer - ence pressure and 1 second duration. :Level of a steacy sound which has the same sound exposure level as does e time - varying sound over .a stated time interval Equivalent sound level for a 26 hr period with a +10 weighting applied to all sounds occur- ring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 16. U Describes magnitude o f a s o.-'+d at a . specific position and time. Describes magnitude of all of the sound at a specific posi- tion accumulated during a specific event, or for a stated time interval. Describes average (energy) state of environment. Usually ertpleyed for &.ma- ation of: 1 hr (L eq(1)), 8 hr (L eq(8)3, or 24 hr(Leq(2.)3. Describes average e:nvirarrn rt in resi- dential situations accoi.tin; for'e:; of nighttime noises often is averaged over a 365 -day year (YDNL). Table 2 Effects of Noise on People from Federal Interagency Coinrnittoo ',Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control," 1900 minx 1)-1. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE (Residential Land Uses Only) Effects Day-Night'thinner Average Sound Level In Decibels Hearing Loss Speech Interference Annoyance2 Average Cnuunuohy lleacllon General Community Attitude Towards Area Indoor Outdoor Qualitative Description '1. Sculence -Inking'. Willy In Alders for 9594 itenlence Intelligibility '4 of Population Highly A yed 73 and above May Begin m Occur 98% 0.5 37'!e Very Severe Nolle is likely to be the mutt important of all adverse aspects of the community environment. r• 70 Will Nut Likely occur 99 V. 0.9 23'4 Severe • • Noise is one of ihr, most Important adverse aspects of the conumunity environn►cm. •• 6) Will Not Occur I(Y.)'l. 1.5 15'4 Significant • Noise Is one of the Important adverse aspects of the community environment. GO wilt Not Occur • 11)094 2.11 • 994 Moderate to ;light Noise may be considered an adverse aspect of the community environment. 55 and below Will Not Occur 1(x1'!. J.5 4'/a Noise considered nu nsore bnportarsi than various other environmental factors. 1. "Speech 1ntcrlerence" data are drawn Ruin the following tables in liI'A's "Levels Document": Table 3, I•ig. D.I. Fig. I)•2, 1•ig. U.). All other data Iron National Academy of Science 1977 report "Guidelines fur Preparing Env inm►n►ental Impact Statl•IIR•IIN on Noise, I(cpur1 of Working Group 69 un Evaluation of Unvirunm►ernal Impact or Nuke." •.2. •Depends on attitudes and other factors. 3. The percentages of people reporting annoyance to lesser extents are higher in each case. An unknown small percentage of people will report being "highly annoyed" even in the quietest surroundings. One reason is the difficulty all people have in integrating annoyance over a very long iime. 4. Atli Odes err other nun•acuustie facture can nmdily this. Noise 21 Iuw Iced► wn still be an imporlanl problem, particularly when it intrudcv m►• la a quiet environ mein. NOTE: Research implicates noise as a Iacior producing suess•related health effects such as heart disease. high -blood pressure and stroke, ulcers and other digestive disorders. The rclalion%hip% be• tweets noise and these ellecls, however, have not as yet been quantified. The report suggested land use compatibility guidelines designate noise zones below Ldn 65 d3 as compatible for residential use, but also states: "The designation of these uses as "compatible" in this zone reflects individual Federal agencies consideration of general cost and feasibility factors as well as past community experiences and program objectives. Localities, when evaluating the application of these guidelines to specific situations, may have different concerns or goals to consider. For an indication Of possible community noise, Table D -1 should be consulted." Table D -1 is taken directly from the Interagency report referenced above. It Summarizes the typical findings of the ==sects of noise on people in residential areas. Table D -1 ci_ssifies noise at an DNL (Ldn) value o= d3 as "Si gfi ri r nt. " ^glow this level, noise is indicated to b8 "moderate" to " =light." According to the tabl =, there will still be a certain ce-centace Of the population highly annoyed below 65 d3. This pe_centace decreases as the DNL level decreases. Quoting from f•cctnote 4 of table D -1, "Noise at low levels can still be an important problem, particularly when it intrudes into a quiet " en-:iro�.m Len: . The FAA has combined the suggestions of the Interagency Committee and others in its table of land use compatibility with Yearly Darr- Night Average Sound Levels in its FAR Part 150 Regulation. This table is reproduced here as Table 3. . It suggests that areas were the ;early Ldn is less than 65 d3 are compatible for -- i r' =ntial use. FAR ?art 150, Appandi X A, Section A. 1 J0. 101(= ) r "(b) Table 1 of this appendix describes compatible land use information for several land uses as a function of YDNL values. The ranges of YDNL values in Table 1 reflect the statistical variability for the responses of large groups of people to noisy. Any particular level micht not, ther- ^ °, accurately assess an individual's perception on o an actual noise environment. Compatible or non - compatible land use is d=ternined by comparing the predicted measured YDNL 'values at a site with the 'values _ �_ i _ d or me s•.�� given. Adjustments or modifications of the descriptions Of the land-use categories may be desirable Efts= consideration of specific local conditions." 18. Table 3 Land Use compatibility Table front PAA Part 150, Appendix A TABLE. 1.—LAN0 USE COMYATIDIUIV' WITH YEARLY DAY-NIGI(T AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS Land use Yearly deynighl .vewaoe sand level (L..) In decibels Widow 05 f.5-70 70-75 75-50 50-55 over SS Residential Residential, other than mobile lanes and tr.raien1 lodgings Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 N(1) N N(1) N(I) 25 25 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y(5) Y(6) Y Y(5) ft Y Y Y • • N(1) N tl(1) N(1) 30 30 25 Y(2) Y(2) 25 Y(2) 25 Y(2) 25 Y(2); 25 Y(7) Y(7) Y Y(5) N N Y 25 • • N N. N(1) N N N 30 Y(3) Y(S) 30 Y(3) 30 Y(3) 30 Y(3) 30 Y(5) N Y , N N N N 30 • r N U 11 H 14 H N Y(4) Y(4) N Y(4) N Y(4) . N Y(4) N Y(5) N Y N N N el ft H N H N N N N Y(4) 14 N N N N N ti N Y(5) ft Y N it N tt H • Slade Yuma pets Tressianllodgings Public Uwe Scoots Hospitals and nursing homes Churches. audtorihans, and calomel hays Govertrire.Mal aervioes Trwroportabon Peking Co(txn.rdal Us•e Offs ... business ed professronal Wholesale and nue—tasking materials, hart/went and farm equipment Retail tad►—pmrwai Ueiti.s Corrrrsxrestion klenrfactukg and Production M..rul.cs.kg, general Plotograpt* and optical Agriculture (scowl iveslock) and irxesay Uveslodr taming and treeing Alining and Wing. n.wve production and estrectio.i Recreauvnel Outdoor sports arenas :end spectator sports • Outdoor music cells. ar.hphitealers Naw eshe its and mos Maaarn ds, parka, resorts and camps Gots nervosa, lining .tables and wafer recreation. - Numbers In parentheses rater to notes. lie des.ynauona corwained it this table do not conaUtuts a Federal detettrination that any use of land covered by the program b acceptable or uhaooepfable under Federal. State. or local taw. Tb. responsitekty kir delerninng the ecopl aabd 'nd te apermissible land useethe relationship between specific {xopertiss andnou specific noise oontos feats with Ie local c authorities. FM detenminatxsns uredo Pat 150 are not k i.o dad to s.Aal,tuts lidera-Sy determined Orr! Uses for U064 determined to W appropriate try local suta.itics In response to lou►/ determined needs and vUUes II achieving noise compatible lark! uses. KEr TO TSat.t 1 SLUCU.Standerd Land Use Corfng Minuet. Y (Yes) -Land Use and (elated structures compatible without restrictions. ft (No) -land Use and related suucluaa ere not co.mpalible and shared be pmthErited. NLA—Noise Level Reduction (outdoor W Woof) to be achieved Urouglt Incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and ooncbuetlon of the structure. 25. 30. or 35..Lard use end related sbuctues generally oornpetble; measures to adsieve NUI of 25. 30. or 35 di, muni be incorporated kilo dos.gn and construction of strucau.. NOSES fce TALE I ((1) When the oamsunity det.rn nos that residential or school uses must b. elbowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Now Level fleduclbn (14151) of at Mol 25 .10 and 30 dB sfhour{ud be koorparatsd Into building codes and be considered In Individual approvals. Normal ieekkollal construction can be expected to plot.;. a HUI of 20 d). Ian. the radicean i•ouremIahas are often rutted as 5. 10 or 15 JD Drew standard construction and normally issuing mechanical ventilation and dosed windows year round However. Um use art NUt aloe!& xi4 not elm:nate outdoor noise problems. 42) Ueasuss to .duevw NUl 25 dD must be incorporated Into the design and construction of portions of these bu)dags where the public Is rewired, offoe areas, noire sensitive WHO Of where the nonmed noise level is low. (3) Measures to achieve HUI of 30 d0 must be Incorporated into the design and arhs/ruction of portions of Uese building* where the pubic Is received. ofltc. anal, nobs sensitive areas or whet* Uwe normal noise Loral is Ver r. (4) Msaasrr.a to allow NU1 35 dD must b. Incorporated Into the design and cntstruction 0. portlans of these lendings where the pubic Y received, offloe areas, make sensitive eras of .4..r a Ue normal level Is low. (5) tend use oonpauLde provided special sand reinforcement systems are Instal/ed. (6) Residential burdrdrga require an (UI or 25. (I) Ites.de•hnai t .fr.gs /eller. MI I4Llt of 311. . (5) lt.sirlwwal taalt.ag;a not permitted. Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) in 1981, the Federal Aviation Administration formally adopted Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as the single system for determining exposure of individuals to airport noise. DNL is the mcst widely accepted descriptor for aviation noisy because of the following characteristics: 1. DNL is a measurable quantity. 2. DNL is simple to understand and use by airport planners and the public who are not familiar with acoustics or acoustical theory. 3. DNL provides a simple method to compare the effectiveness of alternative airport scenarios. A. DNL is a "figure of merit" for noise impacts which is based £O noes m _C S }'1 on communities reactions to environmental noise. 5. DNL is the best measure of noise exposure to identify sicnificant impacts on the oualit_y of the human environment. • 6. By Federal interagency agreement, DNL is the best descriptor of all noise sources for land use compatibility planning. 7. DNL is the only metric with a substantial body of scientific survey data on the reactions of people to noise. Day Night Average Sound level, abbreviated as DNL and symbolized as Ldn, is the 24 hour average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of all events with the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. The weighting of nighttime events accounts for the usual increased interfering effects cf noise during the night, when ambient levels ere lower and people are trying to sleep. The emergence of DNL as the standard descriptor of aviation noise and the figure of merit in land usa compatibility planning, is due chiefly to the efforts of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the spring of 1973, in an effort to comply with the Noise Control Act of 1972, E ?A convened a task group with the function to, "consider the characterization of the impact of airport community noise and to develop a community noise exposure measure." To accomplish this, the task group had to: determine the merits and shortcomings of methods to characterize the impact of the noise of present or proposed airport operations on the public health and welfare; determine which of such methods is most suitable for adoption by the Federal Government; and determine the implications of issuing Federal regulations 20. 4 establishing a standard method of characterizing the aviation noise, and of specifying maximum permissible levels for public health and welfare. The task group's re commendations included the following: 1. Adoption of the Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as the measure of environmental noise. 2. This measure should be used for aircraft noise studies and airport noise standards. 3. The prediction procedures should be standardized. In 1976, EPA formally recommended that FAA adopt DNL as the standard aircraft noise descriptor. FAA's decision to adopt DNL was also based on a number of other factors. In 1980, the Federal Interagency Committee_ on Urban Noise consolidated Federal cuidance on the incorporation of noise considerations in local land planning and site review "to encourage noise sensitive development, such as housing, to be located away from major noise sources." Members of the committee included U.S. E ?A, U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) , U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). The Committee adopted DNL as the best descriptor of noise for land use planning and established related land use compatibility guidelines. In the same year, the Acoustical Society of America developed an American National Standard (ANSI S3.23 -1950) which specified DNL as the acoustical measure to be used in assessing compatibility between various land uses and the outdoor noise environment. In addition, Congress established a voluntary program of airport ncise compatibility planning (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and directed FAA to issue regulations which would: a. establish a single system of noise measurement to be uniformly applied in measuring noise at airports and in surrounding areas for which there is a highly reliable relationship between projected noise and surveyed reaction of people to noise; b. establish a single system for determining the exposure of individuals to noise which results from the operations of an airport; and c. identify land uses which are normally compatible with various exposures of individuals to noise. Accordingly, in 1981, FAA issued Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. As part of this regulation, FAA formally adopted DNL. 21. 3eyond the political and regulatory factors and the need for standardization, the adoption of DNL was the clear choice on scientific grounds. In general, the effects of noise on pebcle results from complex relationships of numerous factors, and separating the effects of these often confounding factors is impractical if not impossible. The variability in the way individuals react to noise makes it impossible to accurately predict how any one individual will respond to a given noise. However, when the community is considered as a whole, trends emerge which relate noise to annoyance. DNL alone provides an adequate indicator of community annoyance to aircraft noise. Other recent studies continue to indicate that DNL is the descriptor of choice in representing community reaction to noises of all kinds. A recent study to assess the nighttime weighting :actor used in DNL concluded that there is no credible evidence to use anything other than the accepted DNL ("Cumulative Airport Noise .Exposure Metrics: An A__oz. nt of the Evidence for Time - of -Day Weightings, " DOT /FAA /EE- 55/10). Another study concluded that DNL satisfactorily represented surveyed community annoyance from helicopter noise for flyovers as infrequent as one operation par day ( "A Community Survey of Helicopter Noise Annoyance Conducted under Controlled Noise exposure Conditions," NASA Tech. Memo 85400). Given that annoyance is a phenomenon for which there is no perfect descriptor, all known research illustrate that DNL provides an excellent portrayal of airport noise exposure for the purposes of assessing land use compatibility . and controlling noise. 22. Sinale Event Noise Level The use of single event noise levels provides a means of comparing individual aircraft flyovers and aircraft operating procedures, such as, quantifying the merits of different noise abatement procedures. FAA Order 1050.1D, Polices and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, also indicates that single event levels, in terms of Sound Exposure Level (SEL), Maximum A- weighted Sound Level (ALm), and one -third octave sound pressure levels, are important for investigating noise sensitive sites for possible soundproofing projects. As described in the section, Measures of Sound, sound is measured on a decibel scale (dB) as a convenient means of representing the typical range of sound pressures; A- weighting (dBA) simulates the reaction of the human ear to the frequency spectrum of a sound; and Sound Exposure Level (SEL) characterizes not only the maximum magnitude of a sound in dBA, but also the duration. ALm is useful for comparing the loudness of different events, such as, aircraft flyovers. The maximum level can be easily understood in terms of everyday experience with aircraft noise and other common sources as shown in the accompanying charts of common noise sources. In addition to the magnitude of sound as measured in terms of ALm, another characteristic is its duration. SEL is a measure of the total sound energy of an event taking in to account amplitude, frequency and duration. SEL is a little more complicated to envision than ALm, but the duration factor has significant implications for identifying annoyance. If the sound of an event is of sufficient magnitude_ to intrude on an activity such as conversation, then the duration of that event could affect the degree of annoyance. The more events, the higher the degree of annoyance. Thus, the measure of community annoyance to aircraft noisy is Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) which is the accumulation of SEL events over a 24 hour period with a 10 decibel penalty applied to the nighttime events. Because SEL includes both magnitude and duration, the SEL of an event will always be higher than the corre3ponding ALm; and, for aircraft events, SEL will consistently track with the maximum level. For many common noise sources, the SEL cannot be easily determined, even when the ALm is known, because the duration of the event is an unknown and uncontrolled quantity. But, for moving objects, such as an aircraft flyover, the duration of the noise event is determined by the speed of the object, i.e. the aircraft velocity, and the distance from source to the receptor. Typically, the farther the distance, the longer the duration. A general rule of thumb for aircraft flyovers is that the, difference between SEL and ALm is between 5 and 10 decibels. For example, if computer analysis indicates a takeoff generates SEL 80 d3 at a given location, then the ALm is probably between 70 23. 1' and 75 d3A. This information; can then: be used= to relate back to other common noise sources' through the• use of' the following; charts of common sounds versus d3(A) levels'. in the previous example the ALm was determined to be between 70', and 73 da(A) , this• is equivalent to the sound level produced by a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet' from the listener. 24. COMMON OUTDOOR .SOUND LEVELS NOISE LEVEL COMMON INDOOR dB (A) SOUND LEVELS . 3 -747 Takeoff at 2 mi. Gas Lawn Mower at 3 ft. Diesel Truck at .50 ft. DC -9 -30 Takeoff at 2 mI. Noisy Urban Daytime 3 -757 Takeoff at 2 mL Commercial Area Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Rural Nighttime 110 Rock Band 100 inside Subway Train (New York) 90 80 '70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 • FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SEMINAR PRESENTED EY SOLT. BERANEK AND NEWMAN, INC. NOISE CONTROL PLAN DEVELOPMENT, i979 • FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR 38- 3C,ESTIMATED AIRPLANE NOISE'LEVELS IN A- WEIGHTED DECIBELS,1983 Food Blender at 3 ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 ft. Shouting at 3 ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft. Normal Speech at 3 ft. Large Business Office Dishwasher Next Room Small Theatre, Large Conference Room (Background) Library Bedroom at Night Concert Hail (Background) Broadcast & Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing 25. [COMMON SOUNDS —130 Oxygen Torch —120 Rock Band —110 707 Landing at 370 ft.- 707 Takeoff at 1000 ft. —' 100 90 Diesel Truck at 50 ft. Garbage Disposal —80 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft. T70 Air Conditioner at 100 ft. —60 Quiet Urban Daytime — 50 Quiet Urban Nighttime —40 Bedroom at Night --30 Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing UNCOMFORTABLE Y 4 VERY LOUD A MODERATE Y 4 QUIET T2° --10 JUST AUDIBLE -- 0 LOUDNESS - Compared to 70 dSA I 32X AS LOUD A 16X AS LOUD 1 4X AS LOUD 1 • 114 AS LOUD 1 V 11/16 AS LOUD I. Y Sou_c.s: Aviation Planning Associates; Calculations of Maximum A- weighted Sound Levels (dBA) Resulting From Civil Aircraft Operations, FAA, 1978, p. 18; Seminar on Noise Control Plan Development, presented for Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., 1979, p. 17. 26. Y Sleep /Speech Disturbance There is a large body of research documenting the effect of noise on sleep disturbance, but the long -term effects of sleep disturbance caused by nighttime airport operations is not conclusively known. The FAA Report, Aviation Noise Effects (Report No. FAA- EE -85 -2) provides a compendium of aviation - related research. It is clear that sleep is essential for good physical and emotional health; noise can interfere with sleep, even when the sleeper is not consciously awakened; and nighttime operations will interfere with the sleep of some people. Thus, . sleep disturbance is one of the factors contributing to aircraft noise annoyance. The variability in the way individuals react to noise makes it impossible to accurately predict how any one individual will respond to a given noise. However when the community is considered as a whole, trends emerge which relate noise to annoyance. In identifying levels for interference, the E ?A's publication entitled: Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (550/9 -74 -004), proclaims: "Although speech - interference has been identified as the primary interference of noise with human activities and is one of the primary reasons for adverse community reactions to noise and long -term annoyance, the 10 d3 nighttime weighting (and, hence, the term Ldn) is applied to give adequate weight to all of the other adverse effects on activity interference." DNL alone provides an adequate indicator of community annoyance to aircraft noise. EPA, in the aforementioned report, states "This formula of equivalent le' ;el (DNL) is used here to relate noise in residential environments to chronic annoyance by speech interference and in some part by sleep and activity interference." -FA's conclusion is partially credicated on the fact that the relationship between other interference factors, such es , sleep interference, and the desired level of sound are not well quantified. All of the sleep disturbance research done to date has been in the laboratory and, as the researchers point out, what relationships they have derived in the lab experiments cannot be applied to home experience (Lukas, J.S., Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing Effect). In a recent study, the United States Air Force (USAF) attempted to develop a means of predicting the effects of aircraft noise upon sleep. However, the development of such a model was not possible because of the lack of appropriate field studies and the large discrepancies between the laboratory and field studies that had been conducted. In this report titled, Analysis of the Predictability of Noise - induced Sleep Disturbance 27. (HSD- TR- 89- 029, •October 1989), USAF concluded that, "Available data do not support construction of a reliable and useful dose r:sporse relationship between noise exposure and sleep disturbance. The influence of noise on sleep depends on a variety of factors: the noise metric chosen, the response metric chosen, consideration of non -noisy factors affecting the relationship, and how the study is conducted:" Non - Auditory Health Effects The =act that airport noise above a certain level annoys airport neichbors is generally accepted, but whether or not that noise causes any physical or mental damage is far less established. FAA Report, Aviation Noise Effects (Report No. FAA- EE -85-2) contains a review of some of the pertinent studies dealing with the non- auditory effects of aircraft noise on people. Most survey studies on this subject found that there is little rn1; =51= evidence on the relationship between noise exposure and physiological or behavioral effects. In fact mazy of the studies directly contradict each other on the cause and effect upon mortality rates, birth defects and incidents of c =rdi Ovascul ar problems. While a cause and effect relationship has not been proved, experiments have shown that noise should be viewed as a risk factor. Further research is necessary giving _special attention to critical groups, such as, pregnant women, children, older people, and people with cardiovascular diseases. 28. AND FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION -- LANDINGS NO MLS MLS 93 MLS 98 RUNWAY.16L JA02 0.9 0.8 0.6 JA04 1.0 0.9 0.6 JA06 1.0 0.9 0.6 JA08 1.0 0.9 0.6 JA10 1.0 0.9 0.6 JA12 1.0 0.9 0.8 JA14 1.0 0.9 0.8 JA16 0.2 0.2 0.2 PA02 1.1 1.1 1.0 PA04 1.1 1.1 1.0 MLSA 0.0 1.8 2.6 MLSB .0.0 0.1 2.7 RUNWAY 16R JA52 6.6 6.5 6.3 JA54 7.7 7.6 7.3 JA56 7.7 7.6 7.3 JA58 5.9 5.8 5.6 JA60 5.9 5.8 5.6 JA62 6.9 6.8 6.7 JA64 6.9 6.8 6.7 JA66 3.5 3.5 3.4 JA68 3.5 3.5 3.4 PA52 2.1 2.1 2.1 PA54 2.1 2.1 2.1 RUNWAY 34L (NC) (NC) JA51 0.9 0.9 0.9 JA53 0.9 0.9 0.9 JA55 0.9 0.9 0.9 JA57 0.9 0.9 0.9 JA61 0.1 0.1 0.1 JA63 0.0 0.0 0.0 JA67 0.8 0.8 0.8 PA51 1.1 1.1 1.1 RUNWAY 34R (NC) (NC) JA01 3.9 3.9 3.9 JA03 3.9 3.9 3.9 JA05 2.9 2.9 2.9 JA07 2.9 2.9 2.9 JA11 2.9 2.9 2.9 JA13 2.9 2.9 2.9 JA15 1.2 1.2 1.2 JA17 1.2 1.2 1.2 PA01 4.1 4.1 4.1 ALL VALUES ARE % OF TOTAL ARRIVALS (NC) = NO CHANGE Legend JD = Jet Departure PD = Prop Departure JA = Jet Arrival PA = Prop Arrival FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION -- TAKEOFFS NO MLS MLS 93 MLS 98 T RUNWAY 16L (NC) (NC) Legend JD02 2.8 2.8 2.8 JD = Jet Departure JD04. 9.1 9.1 9.1 p JD06 6.5 6.5 6.5 PD = Prop Departure JD08 6.5 6.5 6.5 JA = Jet Arrival JD1O 10.8 10.8 10.8 PA = Prop Arrival JD12 5.2 5.2 5.2 PD02 5.0 5.0 5.0 PD04 5.0 5.0 5.0 PD06 1.0 1.0 1.0 PD08 3.6 3.6 3.6 PD10 3.6 3.6 3.6 PD12 1.5 1.5 1.5 PD14 8.2 8.2 8.2 RUNWAY 16R (NC) (NC) JD52 0.0 0.0 0.0 JD54 0.2 0.2 0.2 JD56 0.0 0.0 0.0 JD58 0.0 0.0 0.0 JD60 0.2 0.2 0.2 JD62 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD52 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD54 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD56 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD58 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD60 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD62 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD64 0.1 0.1 0.1 RUNWAY 34L (NC) (NC) JD51 0.8 0.8 0.8 JD53 3.5 3.5 3.5 JD55 1.7 1.7 1.7 JD57 1.7 1.7 1.7 JD59 4.5 4.5 4.5 JD61 1.8 1.8 1.8 JD63 1.4 1.4 1.4 JD65 1.7 1.7 1.7 PD51 2.9 2.9 2.9 PD53 0.1 0.1 0.1 PD55 0.9 0.9 0.9 PD57 0.9 0.9 0.9 PD59 0.2 0.2 0.2 PD61 3.1 3.1 3.1 RUNWAY 34R (NC) (NC) JDO1 0.0 0.0 0.0 JD03 0.9 0.9 0.9 JD05 0.0 0.0 0.0 JD07 0.0 0.0 0.0 JD09 1.7 1.7 1.7 JD11 0.9 0.9 0.9 JD13 0.3 0.3 0.3 JD15 0.2 0.2 0.2 PDO1 0.8 0.8 0.8 PD03 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD05 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD07 0.0 0.0 0.0 PD09 0.1 0.1 0.1 PD11 1.1 1.1 1.1 ALL VALUES ARE % OF TOTAL ARRIVALS 4 (NC) = NO CHANGE LYnitivOCO CAE EDMOKOS UOUX FLAKE 7EAAACE EXHIBIT 3A 1991 PART 150 UPDATE INM FLIGHT TRACK MAP NORTH FLOW FUGHT TRACK JA°1 FUGHT TRACK DESIGNATOR VOLE FOREST Pak cingLANO RE0140140 C•f • Leh JD03/53 'AERGE Is. I SGACUAH RENT C TUCNILA n0/113, ' RX GIG lost eon AUBURN FIRMEST RAMC JA01/51 LAI. • A 'APPENDIX G LETTER FROM STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER • ; • LL C.) LL •• • • ,• , :tr-c• r • : -• ' • ••■:, „ , 4r!3.1•41,‘.. • 44] "11 APSAlt. 4i.OV" .t1P1 ...4‘ ;.V1.>r !•-! -' •.• .-1 -, , " - ‘,• - N 4 .1 ..-.T . !4i ,. '.. .--.' .,,,.,.',--,, -,',, -. t -, , . .. . ' - .:. 1 i-; --;- .i--4_-, !-' , ': . , ''. ' '.' L. ..-.- ::-.',-• .-r .- .t .J'.'S?. - . *-„. ' -: .`.... :. 7;„ ... .,- , , , .- ,,• . . ..., ,' . .. ', '. ,3' ,'7,0„ :,-,4.' ..,' . ..-, '' :5 , ,. - ..., . ' ! " - -. - , .' , ' . , t _ "• - .. .: .• .''..,. '. . ls' , . •l ' , , ',! , , --c-!: -, „' ,,"-,„.' „',' . -.,'- ' ,' - - ■A, .; „,. , . .• , - / -i 1;-Z 4' (4 7.f ? -0)a7iEC. 7) i rirC42 • -. 2 . •* , i 7..: _ ..,-:..' :;- .-.'‘'. :,'' -- .: •-, • • .;k 'i / 1 4,-1: :, .:,. :, i ,?.• '''. • . L. ... - ".:2.1;„:".,;:,'...... .'' ...: . ' .” .± , , „ - . . • . , '''; - .... f.', '''..',.. I j ; - \., t . '; -----: - -.„-, ..!••::••!''.:;;;.'- ..t. '':: -- ' . -,!.•- l i 3•.-1.• . .., . .' .... --.; .. ,, '„,,,, t --I - .,•• :• ;1 • . ,:i - `7,,, .,... ..,. ...1,.._ . ' •-.-:• _i:, -•:-,:,--.f-.... • • . ,7 , , _ , ; • • ••••••'4'.1. • 41...4 , , yr.., ; ,:;„„. _ :. ,,, 1\ ,.,,‘,;‹..,,, :--,, ' -,1 -,..--pd ..--:1 -, I !) r .._., ,,,:.,:;:::„:.-,. ! , ........,... ,,, ,,y( ,--,r,- 4: A i t *".'. i 7,1 — ••.! ••' ' 1,, . -,,,7:-.:%...!;;•-•„„..t:',.. - i ." ':/ • \ , 1:';',4;'1,i'' Z..1 • :::'• i ' • -!! r.-;-...-- .c, .::v....,, ;, .,, .L.,-; '`...,*;."0-' u....:,:.....1 ‘..,: ,..: \., .L.-,:i.:7•.*:-• ! • ' . . ''....:-.•-•7*-.....,•I'l '`,......s%.•5'5::.:,:::•;:;-'1..t.:!:'. i ''.;;;...:'...1'..7.,..•‘', -.. 4; 7"!:''.-:':x..:.'..;1."-tc■;!--..1.`;:i'••• . . '• ' '' '': -:.;;:'::::-.!--•• :•:-.: ::: L1" :: ..,"..',-;•.'1"•; ...-1-:/(4.1 ;I:': ..,c,':'.*..1 r. 1 .:r......!,'". i ';'.',-. •.•:. , IL. *......- 7::.../ '.17.--...) tr I -ct\ !T •., .‘ . • .. „ _ . :. L., ... ,...,-; -I' ...1.• • I • • „ L, ....1.,' '••••••1,,:•:..i.'-••••'•',''‘ ;(-4:-,4 1.:- -%-...-;,,,...,.:-:•..; . - ••••'•"'- ...'." .. - \.- . '.-: • , . '. • 1 .'•\1 7'1 ",•!: . q ., -• ....\ ,-; .■i A - .. 1 \ - • .. *„.' ....., '.. :-', ' ., ..', , .■ ., ...."';‘...t ;'..r:' '•!!1-. ':,....4.1."--...z'■.';,1:.:,...i..i7t..!','?,.1-•::"',.;"..-r...V"ts-:1":'..!".;',"...:.'.' "34....:' . •' .:: .....:-.:-:.:t7%:':';-.:::::1-7.1-"' "1:.'-'''': ';- '''..' 1 ' / i .-i .1"..:f-ivirc_..,rir7tc21 _."-".--r-;---- - -..'"''''''''-'-'''''-:':•-•-'. '''' I'li-rip'' cl-131C)T'',--::.::'• ,;"'"-';'-4:-:,.'.;;I1:1-:.•:: ' : !,:: :::: 1 _..-: -:-.;'.1:1';.: •:ff -,4-.,..'l; : :11: ,,. ; ) -•::_i.....-:7 ..--:-.5(•••.' -,.':: • .:;.-1- • .-.--r-',..z.,,•„;. -_-,,,..-_,... „-...- .-i..:),..-,..-::. 4.. -.,*,....:.-i.:;=-•,-,-4,.,..;‘,,,,,...:,....--„:.- • • s 1 •.,--. , . . . . .. . or i .0 ic ,.nr3_,_.f.1,..::, .,). .....,,.1,- . ...... ,.„.„_, ..4‘.! ,---- i '-•., _"i ,:••,- - 'L --.. • ..-..)cer7- ri vr -:'-.• I 4.1,-; -;.,,,, i,„.ipi..,,,,--,.... 4 ,,--,-:, - --. -, - •--..„..-- - •,-,- -,.,it,- ,-.,- :---;::_,. • -.-- 4 4.-,- • ::. -,...- - :- - ....tt.., ,i..e..t, ,......, -, . ;4 .-...- - ,... ,...„,?„,--....-.: .. : • .... _,-.),:'..• _ , -' 7.-i-..-•-_,t-, . . , .0 : -, . • - ...;;.,,..• 4-,, ..... ,,. IA,: i.- . ,....., , . • ., . 1 ••,-.• ,t,!...7.1-.14-tIli . '.-4 -c..: -1,..ri•'...W4,.1-.- 'IL i.t. . ‘1;14.•..:-.•;‘.''-',ZA•-• e)*-7' .... 4.- 7X---•••74'ri:;e.-, .:!.: ;• '....;-'ilt ..."- "?'.':'.'•,..„,,, ,i , __ _. " '''' • Il-lt.,, i .--.:4!" ,4•VI.:t,t,',9 -•,:',". . ' . - ''' *. '7;'''s-..C. ':: • -; LC.4;''' 4:-',T''''',14,1':4*,;;;:i:::1;,•1-'17•A'•,1,1''4'377;:f. ' , E'i..-'7:' r':$!!!••,1,;., ...„?...g"....,•".'i.--.-.„ ^-. ''.- -...-.;'•7'. ' -7'!,` • i.et'S -...1.:.-4—*-1-1."...,;., 11- s ' ,..: - ::,"( ., ' ,.'"......' : ' • • ...I.. ,.• .: s•: „-, • • 1' " : ... : :- .‘, ' ,-., .-.i;..' - f, '. .—t .• 7. A, ,-k..,.- '••_1: -!t%‘ .••4,,!:•. 4 ,N• z•'4..:"t•T-•.:...,• .:•. ::-..!.! "' ..*. -. ..v...- r.)31. ., ; - - -,-' ,.:i.-.•:.' .•. •' .• . ;?. ,- •.'- .•:-,..:.L...=: ::, .1•.•i•,. ;„!? !:.(.'-• t. :.Z -•! - -r z • " -:;•,.• • • .. ,- • 7 . : ; - ' . . • - - .. : '. . ., • , : . . .--.: • . • - •..:;. .. • .. . ..- L...-.-.._ : .', -' ,!-3 ...', ; ,.' -! .;."A-7!....i:, ,', 5! - ,'' 1•.: ...• ,. ..?•:'- 1: ',;, ..! :.? A4 ,"1, ‘: , •., ,!.;.. . , e! .•. LL!,.-:. .•",..«•'...• k 7.,,. ..I..„..r : 4.. 4-.•C-:.• !1.:-.I:.1.'.'1.:, ' .. -- .-,' -'I .;1 ,,',1...".?12...1;A!.::•t?!.l 1?•'.: .: .- , : ... i ..i... . , .. .. .' '' , ' ,',. •'!'•':., . - . - • .' ' . •- : ..-'"\ '.,. ::7'";:•..:.=;4: ,, , •4-5: : " - •'—".. . .-.4:: i.„ -.1:- •;-:!t,. ;!„.• , i l -i. : •c 4.1, :• - 1.'-•!. , .,'.-- . -,-:--:.. . . - A; • - 1% j,! ! - . ' 4 a • ,7 , •, : ' ::: . . ,_ , -s- • .;;4, ; :, .. : l-it t'..k..` ,-. . •;- . .- • - ,• _',:,..:,.;•,•;-;.-t,',;"''-"7 ,:.'•._-.4.‘ ' , 7•••• ',...-.::'; .. '..,7. "-,,=....• 3. :.:.-••'•' :','• • 1, ' : ••■•• • . - • ; • • • " t 7 • .9 4 • . ••• ' • • • - • ÷• • ‘., ■. • • • • -•!S% .e • • , • . . . . ca/%141..tz.0 . 3.! :-.•-.4!!!1.s a• sTrki , • , '- • qh-4., n-.As ...•") • t • . • • •••• ' . • - • 4•••,( .•• 2:ft :T. " • • ••• ••• 4 ';-4•"••••• . 61',;frt.'"•2344(' J.: -11 7,4741t.' 4.141! • 0.1 • -41,19''''A.';":;i :•'.:4.kr4:t • !,1, 1,• ,•. 111.71Y,. .4?? - !*g*: - • •-•43. ,,,•••• • ' ' ••17•!"... • tz. • , • • 1. 1 . • • ,„E!, • ; : t, sage..e.• • • • 4' J • ' 4 d 1 _...�un 11 • 4 r nli l vfM • .. 3t s 1 icken ghts 6:I • ./ . w /:. . • 3 • 3 3 T r: ~. Sr r/a 3T :7` .•4.r „I'. ' •�`, yam:...... . 3 rag 3T *v. 0 rn sr • j t'1 < - N(.r i ._i T SOW= See Tao Aran L ,daea LEGEND 1 Proposed Na ra1 and Sam Wings. Taxi S sop g Aran and Farr/ Cr Waan /ReMicl Ans. 2 Proposed S. r00el St Pudic Psnong Lot 3 Proposed Ti a HoldSng Acs. 4 Proposed Geourd Tranacons0on Seeping Alas 5 Proposed 2amh Ava S. Employs. Penang Lot 5 opeond Farocaaon o Airport Entrance Almon ®aa,cery 1 168E J- ' ;. 8 ••. 0 'A M Scab in Mime Figure 1 PROPOSED PARKING FACILITIES, SEA -TAC AIRPORT C}+UCG CLARXE Director ...n,.. a. l;: J ,,.mt:f.'E3SH.,..+1ib::•1.t " ""ti a_ .,'+,ry' :..... i*SY'.' . T. ?: Ry' ,y!,'•L'3nn, . St at.i7C ' t i S7Y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEIS Comment Letts.: C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, 111 West Twenty -First Avenue. KL-71 o Olympia. Washington 98504 -5411 4 (205) 753-4017 e SCAN 134.4011 September 26, 1988 Mr. Robert Wells Port of Seattle Engineering Department P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, NA 98111 Log Reference: 1100 -C dI -04 Re: Sea -Tac Parking Dear ttr. Wells: We have reviewed the above referenced project. In our opinion, the project site does not include any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register or State Register of Hi. oric Places. If I can be of further assistance, please call me at (206) 586 -2901. tar Sincerely, /feno&-er Leonard T. Garfield Architectural Historian 87 Archaeology and Historic Preservation • Community Services • Emergency Management _e Fire Protection Services • Local Development and Housing a Local Government Services a Public Works m • ma; .rr,asrrl:e ...up< .r*, +�; .rr ,�'�;c.:'.a,�'ry,n�'t :•r, =att:. fibs'.': •)L: ESTIMATES OF PERCENTAGE OF MLS- EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT.. AIRCRAFT TYPE 4 Commercial Air Carrier ESTIMATES OF PERCENTAGE OF MIS - EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT YEAR 1991- 19931994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Regional Air Carrier Executive Fleet 0 0 0 6.5 12.9 19.1 36.7 53.6 71.8 85.2 100 100 5.7 11.8 16.8 34.4 51.5 68.2 84.3 100 100 5.0 9.9 14.7 36.7 55.4 71.0 83.6 93.2 100 *Source: MLS Program Office Kirkland it Webster Point rost Hunt. Point Fourmilo Roc t/o/0 • Medina. Dabney P Groat Pt Duwamish cad Alki 'oint Faben Point !MUG( Calkins Point Bailey Poninsul, A 1 ■. ' = Williams Porn South Pt Brace Pt 1liiti EXISTING ILS-1 6R 3ryn Mawr 1 tons FLY VISUAL SEGMENT int els latielsea Seahurst Sec.r.ma Beach h 405 lta 515 ) ■ — 11 IJ III I III j1„ Fourmire Roc I' • • • AIki Point r taint Pees hanle Webster Point Oster /slant/ Hunt Point Fart Dabney /' Groat Pt Duwmnish ead raven Point ll(M /ING RRIIGI Calkins Point Bailey Peninsul. Williams Poin South Pt Brace Pt ,Point Heyer sport 3ryn Mawr !leach Inteleea Seahurst Secoma Beach 5)5 Normandy Par 1. III iii ! 1,1 r vvn,n trlr Paint ri;r,:r Kirkland\ 1 Llrnt: Pain( III . /Ir>1ij Nleditkt 1_ Dabney /'t Groat Pt Duw.,,nish eau l abut; Paint 11 /i IUGL 1111Ai IINli Colkrr►s Point Alki Point lJa,lcy Poninsul, Williorn s Porn South Pt Kennydn1 Coleman F'1 Grace Pt 1111 - (11 EXISTING ILS-1 6R 'pint reels s Beach Ingelsea Scallurs1 Sec&nna Beach -ItL 0 j-1 t_- t t r4. )1 r I I, UL A _I- III it 0`,1 1 Weh.; rC, /'mnt aster Island Dabney /'I Grua( P( Duwnn,islt lam; oad Calkins t'oirit Alki Point 13arle y Partittsul, MLS A 'Villiams Porn South Pt Brace Pt 1Cennyclal Cofetnart P( �tl rJ01!, FLY VISUAL SEGMENT Sealiurs1 T lit Normandy P u. u l l 1990 A NU USES NORTH OF SE L -TAC AIRPORT if i1 111 I V/7 Hop z:Ui a /:fillip •- jingle Family Residential ulti— Family Residential obile Home Park Transient Lodgings School Hospital; Nursing Home Church Government Services Office; Professional General Retail Manufacturing Park; Open; Cemetery Water Recreation 1990 LAND USES NORTH OF SEA -TAC AIRPORT WINVenie Single Family Residential Multi -- Family Residential Mobile Home Park Transient Lodgings School II III i Hospital; Nursing Home Church Government Services Office; Professional General Retail Manufacturing Park; Open; Cemetery Water Recreation Airport Historic Site Nomknie I::NE1:u .I■ 'MU Scale 1:36,000