Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-35-88 - ORILLIA SHOPPING CENTER - REZONEORILLIA RETAIL CENTER REZONING DEVELOPMENT FOR RETAIL CENTER LIND AVE, 34T" ST, EAST VALLEY ROAD & 41ST ST. EPIC 35 -88 Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT February 5, 1990 Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue, Su4 7QA Seattle, WA 98114 Z/ Attn: Donal orson SUBJECT: lia Retail Center Dear Corson: AU G 3 11990 CITY PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for your letter dated January 31, 1990 stating your position in regard to the Orillia Retail Center. On January 23, 1990, itemized statements of unpaid billings were faxed to Sally Alhadaff. She indicated that these would be paid upon receipt of the invoices. I have enclosed copies of these items for your review plus a copy of the statement prepared for Mr. Wayne Gaffney on November 21, 1989. These billings reflect charges up to and including November, 1989. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 235 -2518. Sincerely, e neth E. Nyberg Community Development Director 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235 -2540 CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STATEMENT November 21, 1989 Orillia Retail Center EIS /Sabey Corporation 1988 to November 1989 Unpaid Billings Shapiro and Associates November, 1988 December, 1988 January, 1989 February, 1989 March 1989 April 1989 May 1989 June 1989 July 1989 August 1989 September,1989 October 1989 November, 1989 Sub total William Popp and Associates March 1, 1989 through July 25, 1989 July, 1989 through November, 1989 Sub total Staff Time John Adamson, 96 hours John Adamson, 181 hours Don Erickson, 12 hours Nancy Laswell Morris, 374 hours Sub total Total of unpaid billings Balance left in account $2,015.12 7,072.07. 480.85 1,551.10 2,918.89 2,292.85 4,409.55 1,046.74 11,615.01 12,133.07 4,976.73 17,437.12 4,038.50 $71,987.60 25,291.00 14,270.00 39,561.00 1,599.05 3,384.79 256.44 8,000.00 13,240.28 $124,788.88 - 33,317.47 Shortage $91,471.41 Earl Clymer, Mayor • CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division February 2,1990 Mr. Donald L. Corson Senior Director, Development Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 9810 RE: Orillia Reta Dear M-r Corson: er Extension ITV LI1J (zuciT) 7990 CITY O -F TUKW. a PLANNING DEPT Thank you for your letter of January 31, 1990 informing us of Glacier Park Company's new role with the Orillia Retail Center comprehensive plan amendment and rezone request and EIS. We will notify all parties of record that it is your intent not to proceed with the issuance of the Final EIS, adoption of the comprehensive plan policies for regional retail development or pursue the rezone at this time. Regarding the issue of keeping the project on "hold ", I must inform you that, given the fact ,that initial application for the comprehensive plan amendment was made in June, 1987, we cannot hold this application open for more than a few months if no action is being taken on the project. Typically, if an applicant has not taken any action on a project within six months of our accepting it, we either ask the applicant to withdraw the project, or we may deny the project for failure to comply with ordinance or administrative procedures. Also, experience has shown us that most EIS's have a limited "shelf' life and need to be updated or supplemented, usually after a year or so, since conditions having a bearing on the project and /or EIS often change within this period of time and need to be reflected. Also, the issue with the Orillia Retail Center will be even more complicated in that the Final EIS will not even have been issued. We appreciate the fact that Glacier Park Company intends to pay off the amounts currently owed the consultants who worked on the EIS. As I understand it, Pat Prewitt has already transmitted copies of all outstanding invoices to Sally Alhadiff of the SABEY Corporation as of January 23, 1990. If you need additional copies for your own files, please let me know. We look forward to working with you to get these matters resolved as soon as possible. Sincerely, entieth Nyberg, Director KN /DE:mr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235 -2550 . MMMMMM IL AOMMMMUMW MINN MI Ural, IMMO 11111111:111. GLACIER PARK COMPANY Land Management for Increased Opportunities January 31, 1990 Mr. Kenneth Nyberg, Director Department of Community Development City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Orillia Retail Center Dear Mr./Nyberg: St 1 CITY OF RENToI RCEtVED FEB 1 1990 COMMUNITY DCYELOPMENT DEPARTMENT As you know, Glacier Park Company is the owner of the property known as the Orillia site, which is the subject of a pending application for a comprehen- sive plan amendment and contract rezone. Until recently, the Sabey Corporation and Glacier Park Company were working together to develop this property as a regional retail center. As a result of corporate restructuring efforts, Glacier Park has assumed complete responsibility for the Orillia site, and the Sabey Corporation will not continue to pursue the pending comprehensive plan amendment and rezone for its regional retail center proposal. As the owner of the property, Glacier Park continues to believe that a commercial designation for the Orillia site is appropriate and that its future development as a regional retail center would prove beneficial to the City's efforts to diversify its economic base. However, at this time we are not in a position to proceed with this applica- tion, including issuance of the Final' EIS, adoption of comprehensive plan policies for regional retail development, and negotiation of site - specific development restrictions. We do not wish to abandon this application, but would like to place it on "hold" until further notice. We intend to pay the amounts currently owed under the contract between the City and the Sabey Corporation for preparation of the environmental impact statement. If you will provide me with an invoice for amounts currently due and payable, I will see that it is paid. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you or your staff have any questions, I hope you will not hesitate to call. We look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Donald L. Corson Senior Director Development DLC:jmc6.dlc.005 cc: T. Ryan Durkan Glenn Bachman M. Anamosa M. E. Brandeberry W. C. Pontius K. Rahm 1011 Wrnslr`rn Avenue. Suite 700 • Sn,,gln Wachingtnn 90104 • ?O0 IR7 5OO A Subsidiary of Burlington Resources Inc TO: FROM: DATE: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Vernon Umetsu John McFarlan February 7, 1989 RE: ORILLA CENTER D.E.I.S. FEB if 71989 It appears that some substantial off -site impacts will occur with the construction of this facility. We have apparently addressed this issue in our initial comments to the City of Renton. I assume they (Renton) will address our concerns and offer mitigation (or not) in the F.E.I.S. Please coordinate the review of their response with the Public Works Department. Traffic issues are likely the greatest concern. Ross and his staff should carefully consider any proposed mitigation measures. cc: Mayor Rick Beeler Ross Earnst CITY OF TUKWILA INFORMATIO • 1006 • FOP. MAYOR'S OFFICE ONLY ay City Adm. Fled DEPARTMENT l,.P LNUO LL DATE: 1 2 0 `1 INITIATOR: e /ZAK-V •J b.U5 er5L, IrJITIALS DATE For your Information Response requested is1P f Immediate response requested DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE /INCIDENT: (attach additional Info as appropriate) RJNTOh! (SSVeo A Su P PGe 74 E'JT To T 0/Z.IC.0 /A CEU7 ]7EI S 1.1 M 1 c. c. • G. . F. 5 -, 'Pvn(G Lc AFT S,w. 4 S-r- s7 d- & V.4 L C. E y R-b . -nits /5 A Al ALT. S I Te Alva c_ YS(S ' TO M EE T 4C Ac_ C21 %C2( ,4, 7.Fe- AC."r SITES - 2E : (10 LaAt .: e-S 4 . t To'/ CC" 7E7 ° S Tie 4 (Al M EA< . /-4 w E1/072 5 / n/ C e' No N e7.../ SUTSTA/l'SVE (sSU r S wA-VC. ii ov&tEli .L ► OT /7i C i PA-re- FUIT/ftQ ACTconl. PIE' OTEGT ,, I --rt IV ye ?O g- _fcf. TUS T, r•i E'D eA- Scr7j On( c"T +M A- -rM Z, M I c, c. GSF AL-7-A/ c. S-PA ce- A es- 1 (t Yt r_ 20a0 . 6 t ACTION TAKEN: T -tA•PF /C + g". c_oikeo,t4 rC 1M.P14CTS Amy E Ac.ke -Aay 6 t a(SG cyrs Ct /n( T,7<6- PLAAi . /,S . IA( 7 / A' G ?J EP /2 C^(77 '/ C' Fe- ! S . ( -6--- %T6ri2 TO Go(c.0 2ES Poo./b Tic- OR. i G t,/4C— �' 70 O U A c_c7A-+ /,4 Ern/ TS „ '- J ACTION ANTICIPATED /REQUESTED: j)=, yc “/Akir Awy SPA _I -L(. /M`i'lt ,Q y DISTRIBUTION: Original - Mayor's Office; cc: DISTRIBUTION: Original - Mayor's Office; cc: Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION January 3, 1989 Dear Recipient: JAN - 5 1989 RE: REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ORILLIA RETAIL CENTER REZONE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Attached please find the ,Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a comprehensive plan amendment of 68 acres and a rezone of 46 acres (within the Comprehensive • Plan Amendment area) to allow a regional retail commercial center in a portion of the Valley Planning Area. Based on comments received last year on the Draft EIS, a Supplemental Draft EIS has been prepared. Comments on the Revised Draft EIS must be submitted to the Planning Division, Community Development Department, by 5:00 PM on Friday, February 3, 1989. 'comments postmarked February 3, 1989 will also be accepted. ely, Donald . Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:mjp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 Title and Description FACT SHEET The Proposed Action is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a request for a zone reclassification (rezone) for a portion of the Valley Planning Area in the City of Renton. The purpose of the Comprehen- sive Plan Amendment and rezone is to encourage and enable development of regional retail commercial uses to serve the South End market. The Proposed Action would establish new regional commercial policies in the Comprehensive Plan and would amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to redesignate approximately 68 acres from Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option to Commercial. The proposed rezone is for a zone reclassifi- cation of approximately 46 acres from Manufacturing Park (M -P) to Business District (B -1). In the Draft EIS for the Orillia Retail Center site, issued April 18, 1988, vari- ous conceptual development scenarios and design configurations were created to illustrate the development that could occur on the rezone site under the Proposed Action and alternatives. Two development scenarios were identified: one is a one million square foot regional retail center comprised of a set of clusters; the other is a mall -like structure of comparable size. Another conceptual development alternative examines a mall -like structure of approx- imately 650,000 square feet. Another al- ternative examines implementation of the rezone but not the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with conceptual development al- lowing a wide variety of commercial uses. The No Action Alternative retains the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and is illustrated by a 1.5 million square foot office complex. i N - 5 1989 Project Location FACT SHEET (Continued) This document supplements the Draft EIS on the Orillia Retail center site by examining the impacts of alternative lo- cations for the development of a regional retail center. This Supplemental Draft EIS also examines extra - jurisdictional traffic impacts that could occur from development of the rezone site as well as an examination of wetlands on the rezone site that could be affected by site development. The proposal is located in the southeast portion of the Valley Planning Area as shown in Figure 2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. The requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment area of approximately 68 acres is located east of Lind Avenue Southwest, south of Southwest 34th Street, west of the East Valley Freeway (SR -167) and generally north of Southwest 41st Street (the existing Commercial designated land). The rezone proposal area consists of approximately 46 acres, and is a smaller area within the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area. The rezone proposal is bounded by Lind Avenue Southwest, Southwest 34th Street, East Valley Road, and Southwest 41st Street, except for a portion of the southwest corner of the block. Figure 3 in the Supplemental Draft EIS shows the area of the proposed rezone. The alternative locations for a regional retail center that are examined in this Supplemental Draft EIS were determined through a screening process that identified the Longacres area and the Renton Center area as potential locations fora regional retail center. Action Sponsor For the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments: City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 ii FACT SHEET (Continued) Approximate Date of Implementation Lead Agency Responsible Official and Contact Person for Questions Comments and Information Licenses, Permits and Approvals Authors and Principal Contributors to EIS For the Proposed Rezone: Sabey Corporation 201 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98119 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone could receive City Council approval by June 15, 1989. City of Renton Department of Community Development Environmental Review Committee John R. Adamson, Program Development Coordinator Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Phone: (206) 235 -2620 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared under the direction of the City of Renton, Department of Community Development, and the Environmental Review Committee. Research and analysis was provided by the following firms: Shapiro and Associates, Inc., Environmental Consultants - Glenn Bachman, Marc Boule', Pam Bredouw, David McDowell, Pam Baron, Mike Thies, Susan Killen, Andrew Gorski, Rose Wong, Cindy Hahn William E. Popp Associates, Transportation Consultants - William Popp, Maria Cain Conger & Clark, Inc. Market Analysts - Kevin Clarke, Nicholas Veenstra Baylis, Brand, Wagner Architects, Design Consultant iii FACT SHEET (Continued) Location of Background Data Date of Issue of the Draft EIS Date of Issue of the Supplemental Draft EIS Date Comments Due Public Hearing City of Renton Department of Community Development Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Shapiro and Associates, Inc. Suite 1400, The Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 624 -9190 April 18, 1988 January 3, 1989 February 3, 1989 January 30, 1989 2:00 p.m. Fire Station Training Room 211 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington Cost of Document to Public $5.00 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Fact Sheet Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables SUMMARY Section I INTRODUCTION Section II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Page 1 7 A. Introduction 8 B. Objective of the. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 8 C. The Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 8 D. Methodology for Identifying Potential Locations for a Regional Retail Center in the City of Renton 10 1. Description of the Methodology 10 2. Discussion of Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria 11 a. Consistency with the Proposed Commercial Policy #1 11 b. Suitable Access and Efficient Circulation 11 c. Visibility 12 d. Compatible Land Use 12 e. Optimal. Size 13 f. Municipal Implications of Development 13 3. The Selection Process 13 a. Location 1: The Orillia Center Area 14 b. Location 2: The Longacres Area 17 c. Location 3: The Renton Center Area 18 E. The Proposed Action 20 F. Alternatives to the Proposed Action 21 1. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative 21 2. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative 21 3. No Action Alternative 24 G. Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Project Implementation 25 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) List of Figures Potential Regional Commercial Center Locations within Easy Access of a Freeway and Two Arterials Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Area Proposed Rezone Area Existing Comprehensive Plan Designations Existing Zoning in the Longacres Area Existing Zoning in the Renton Center Area Assignment of Year 2000 Traffic Associated with Development of a Regional Retail Center at the Longacres Area Location Assignment of Year 2000 Traffic Associated with Development of a Regional Retail Center at the Renton Center Area Location Page 15 22 23 27 29 31 66 69 Locations of Wetlands on the Proposed Orillia Retail Center Rezone Site 105 vii Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) List of Tables Summary of Environmental Impacts Summary of Consistency of Alternative Regional Retail Center Locations with Feasibility Criteria Year 2000 Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service with and without a Regional Retail Center at the Longacres Area Location Year 2000 Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service with and without a Regional Retail Center at the Renton Center Area Location Table 5 Differential Impact (1) on Affected Road Segments of Regional Retail Center Operations at the Longacres Area Location Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Differential Impact Summary ( %) on Affected Road Segments of Regional Retail Center Operations at the Renton Center Area Location Needed Number of Lanes on Affected Road Segments to Accommodate Projected Year 2000 Traffic Associated with a Regional Retail Center at the Longacres Area Location Needed Number of Lanes on Affected Road Segments to Accommodate Projected Year 2000 Traffic Associated with a Regional Retail Center at the Renton Center Area Location South End Market Area Comparison Goods Retail Expenditure Potential and Justified Retail Square Footage Table 10 Profile of Retailers of Comparison Goods in the South End Market Area Table 11 Estimated Comparative Goods Retail Sales by Center for Each Alternative Table 12 Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Impacts by Alternative Table 13 Differential Impact Summary - External Limits for Regional Retail Center at the Orillia Rezone Site Table 14 Year 2000 Traffic Volumes and Level -of- Service for Orillia Center Rezone Site with and without a Regional Retail Center viii Page 4 16 61 63; 67 70 73. 75; 92' 93 97 98 111 112 SUMMARY This section provides a summary of the information presented in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS). The SDEIS provides new and additional analyses to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Orillia Retail Center Rezone, which was issued on April 18, 1988. The key features of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone (the Proposed Action) are summarized below. Section II of the DEIS presents a more detailed description of the Proposed Action and site development alterna- tives. Section III of the DEIS identifies the impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Action and each of the site develop- ment alternatives. This SDEIS focuses on potential alternative locations for a regional retail center in the City of Renton. The SDEIS describes the features that are characteristic of a successful regional retail center, delineates the methodology by which alternative regional retail center locations were identified, and describes two locations that were selected for analysis for the purpose of complying with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) regulations. These two locations are the Longacres Area Location, which encompasses the existing race track as well as adjacent property; and the redevelopment of the existing Renton Center and adjoining property, from a community retail center to a regional retail center. The SDEIS identifies environmental impacts associated with these two regional retail center location alternatives. The SDEIS also includes economic impacts related to the proposed development of the Orillia Center and also provides additional data on wetlands and transportation that supplement the analyses presented in the DEIS. THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action was generated in response to a request by the Sabey Corporation, which had proposed a rezone of an approximately 46 acre property. The proposed rezone was to allow the development of a one million (net) square foot regional retail commercial center at the northwest intersection of Southwest 41st Street and East Valley Road. The proposal was designed to fulfill an unsatisfied existing and projected demand for the retailing of comparison goods in the South End Market Area. In response to the rezone request, the City determined that a regional retail center use would not be consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as well as a rezone. The Proposed Action is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone for a portion of the Valley Planning Area in the City of Renton. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment includes: . the creation of a regional commercial district objective, which states that a regional center should be located in the Green River 1 Valley in order to take advantage of the retail commercial market opportunity of the broader South End market; . the establishment of ten policies that would guide the development of a regional retail commercial center. Key policies relate to locations proximate to freeway access; unifying architectural themes; provision of regional retail sales and service opportunities and prohibition on strip retail; encouraging pedestrian- oriented amenities, common parking and ample landscaping; providing for site plan review and encouraging design standards, restrictive covenants and contract rezones; and . the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map to redesignate approximately 68 acres from Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option to Commercial (see Figure 2). The rezone would include the redesignation of approximately 46 acres from Manufacturing Park (M -P) to Business District (8-1) [see Figure 3 in SDEIS]. In order to illustrate the types of environmental impacts that could occur with development of a regional retail center at the Orillia Center location under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and /or rezone, conceptual development scenarios were created. For the Proposed Action, two conceptual, development scenarios were generated and discussed in the DEIS. Under the first, a one million (net) square foot, clustered retail commercial center would be constructed on the proposed rezone site. Under the second development scenario the same area of retail commercial development would be located in a mall -type structure. The DEIS also examined a No Action Alternative, in which the existing Comprehensive Plan text and map and existing zoning would be retained. Under the No Action Alternative in the DEIS, it is assumed that 1.5 million (net) square feet of office use would be developed in clustered buildings throughout the Orillia site. The DEIS examines two additional alternatives. In one alternative there would be no revisions to the Comprehensive Plan text or map, however, the proposed rezone would occur. Development is assumed to be a combination of office and retail uses. In the last alternative, it is assumed that there would be revisions to the Comprehensive Plan text and map as well as a rezone: the same as under the Proposed Action. However, under this alternative, the scale of the retail center would be reduced by about one - third. A comparison of the environmental impacts of these alternatives is presented in the Executive Summary of the DEIS. REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER LOCATION ALTERNATIVES A major focus of the SDEIS is the analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the development of a regional retail center at the two alternative locations. Through a screening process that used a set of 2 criteria for identifying suitable alternative locations for a regional retail center, the City determined that there were no reasonable alternatives to the Orillia Center site location. However, the City determined that in order to comply with SEPA regulations, alternative locations for a regional retail center should be examined in the SDEIS. The alternative locations that are examined are the Longacres area and the Renton Center area. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative The Longacres Area Alternative is the 174 acre area that is located near the I -405 and West Valley Highway interchange. Much of the area is currently occupied by Longacres, a commercial recreation resource of regional significance. Under this alternative the proposed regional commercial policies would be implemented, however, there would be no revision to the Comprehensive Plan Map or to the area's zoning. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative The Renton Center is an existing 25.8 acre community retail center located on Rainier Avenue South, approximately one -half mile north of I -405.. In order to provide sufficient area for a regional retail center, it is assumed that the area of the center would be expanded to include the approximately 13 acres immediately west of the Renton Center. In order to create a unified center with this additional area it would be necessary to vacate Hardie Avenue S.W. and Fifth Avenue Place. Under this alternative the proposed regional commercial policies would be implemented, however, there would be no revision to the Comprehensive Plan Map. There would need to be a rezone of a small parcel west of Hardie Avenue S.W. from G -1 to B -1. COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table 1 presents a matrix that compares at a programmatic level the environmental impacts that could occur with regional retail center development under the Proposed Action and the two alternative locations. Actual impacts would be dependent upon the specific uses that would locate on the site. MITIGATION The proposed regional retail commercial policies have incorporated language that is intended to reduce or eliminate many of the adverse environmental impacts that could occur with the development of regional retail center uses. These policies include the prohibition on strip commercial development type uses and the inclusion of policies intended to encourage unifying design themes, landscaping pedestrian- oriented amenities, and the sharing of parking facilities. The policies also require site plan review and encourage the use of contract rezones and restrictive covenants to ensure that project implementation and operation is consistent with the City's regulations. 3 ELEMENT LAND USE • Comprehensive Plan • Zoning • Site Land Use TRANSPORTATION • Vehicle Trips • Levels of Service • Pedestrians /Bicycles • Railroad SERVICES 8 UTILITIES • Fire Protection • Police Protection • Parks 8 Recreation Table 1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Action Alternative No changes in Comprehen- sive Plan text or map. No zoning change. No changes in and uses expected; however she development or redevelop- ment allowed under exist- ing regulations could occur at all locations. No change in vehicle trips from development of regional retail center. No change in levels of service from development of regional retail center. No change in pedestrian/ bicycling traffic from de- velopment of regional retail center. No change in railroad facil- ities from development of regional retail center. No change in fire protec- tion from development of regional retail center. No change in police prolec- lion from development of regional retail center. No change in demand for parks and recreation from development of regional retail center. Orillia Center Alternative Comprehensive Plan text and map would be revised. Zoning change. Existing 43 acre vacant rezone site would be devel- oped into regional retail center may be pressures for future changes of land use on adjacent and nearby properties. 37,100 new trips generated. Reduced level of service on 13 road segments; 3 reduced to LOS F. Pedestrian/bicycle traffic could increase. Railroad spurs on she could require removal; al- ternate rail access to prop- erties to north of rezone site could be provided. Potential for increased calls and increased emer- gency vehicle response time. Increased calls would re- quire approximately four police officers to be added to force. Demand tor 4.4 acres of recreation area could oc- cur with development; net demand would be slightly less. 4 Longacres Alternative Comprehensive Plan text would be revised; no change in Plan Map. No zoning change. Existing regional commer- cial recreation resource use would be eliminated from site and replaced with regional retail cen- ter; may be pressures for future changes of land use on adjacent and nearby properties; Long -term viability of cen- ter could be adversely af- fected by a future center locating more advantage- ously relative to the South End Market Area centroid. 28,450 net trips generated. Renton Center Alternative Comprehensive Plan text would be revised; no change in Plan Map No zoning cnange tor part of area. Existing 25.8 acre com- munity retail center and 13 acres of adjacent va- cant property would be re- developed into regional re- tail center; may be pres- sures for future changes of land use on adjacent and nearoy properties; Long -term viability of cen ter could be adversely af- fected by a future center locating more advantage- ously relative to the South End Market Area centroid; Portions of Hardie Avenue S.W. and Fifth Place S.W. would be vacated. 23,300 net trips generated. Reduced level of service Reduced level of service on 8 road segments; on 17 road segments; 3 reduced to LOS F. 4 reduced to LOS F. Pedestrian/bicycle traffic Pedestrian /bicycle traffic could Increase. could increase. Railroad tracks to west would be consolidated into one track Railroad tracks to south of site would have no impact on development. Potential tor Increased Potential for increased calls and increased emer- calls would be somewhat gency vehicle response greater than currently time. exists; increased emer- gency vehicle response time. Increased calls would re- Increased calls would re- quire approximately tour quire approximately four police officers to be added police officers to be added to force. to force. Demand for 4.4 acres of Demand for 4.4 acres of recreation' area could oc- recreation area could oc- cur with development. cur with development. ELEMENT • Water • Sanitary Sewer • Stormwater • Electricity Table 1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Action OriIlia Center Longacree Renton Center Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Redevelopment of area would result in removal of existing racetrack a com- mercial recreation re- source oI regional signifi- cance; facility probably would relocate out of City. No change in demand for Approximately 166,500 Net water consumption Net water consumption water from development gallons/day of water could would be less than Orillia would be less than Orillia of regional retail center. be consumed by uses. Center Alternative. Alternative. No change in demand for Sanitary sewer convey - Sanitary sewer convey- Sanitary sewer convey - sanitary sewer from de- ance and treatment re- ance and treatment re- ance and treatment re- velopment of regional quirements comparable to quirements comparable to quirements comparable to retail center. water consumption. water consumption. water consumption. No change in demand for Assuming 92% Impervious Assuming 92% impervious Assuming 92% impervious stormwater sewer from surface coverage, approx- surface coverage of area surface coverage, approxi development of regional lmatey 68,000 cubic feet similar in size to Orillia mately 57,000 cubic feet retail center. of on -site detention Center, approximately of on -site detention could could be required. 68,000 cubic feet of on- be required. site detention could be required. No change in demand for Approximately 23.3 million Approximately 23.3 million Approximately 23.3 millior electricity from develop - KWH/year of electricity KWH/year oI electricity KWH/year of electricity ment of regional retail could be consumed. could be consumed; net con- could be consumed; net center. sumption would be slightly consumption would be less less than Orillia than Orillia Altemative. Alternative. ECONOMICS • Employment No change in employment 2,200 new jobs would be 190 worker -years of em- Approximately 165 work- from development of re- created. ployment would be er -years of employment gional retail center. displaced; 2200 new jobs would be lost or displaced; would be created. 2,200 new jobs would be created; net increase of 1,765 jobs. • Municipal Revenues from 1995 sale of Comparison Goods - Renton 51,141,200 53,041,500 - Tukwila 54.007,100 $3,536,500 • Annual - Business License No change in business $121,000.00 Fees license fees. • Annual - Annual Property Tax No Change. $1.345,000.00 $2,806.100 $3.685,400 $2,296,600.00 $3.703,700.00 5110,500.00 597,075.00 Replaces nine -month existing total of $28,200. $1,345,000.00 $1345000.00 Replaces existing tax of Replaces existing tax of $68,000.00 $94,000.00 • Renton Municipal No change in expenditures Municipal expenditures Municipal expenditures Municipal expenditures Expenditures resulting from development would be approxi- would be comparable to would be comparable to of regional retail center. mately 5337,000. Orillia Alternative; net Ori Ilia Alternative; net expenditures would be expenditures would be less than Orillia less than OriIlia Alternative. Alternative. 5 Additional measures could be considered to further reduce or eliminate environmental impacts. Such measures could include the development of regional commercial center guidelines that would provide a framework for considering project features; and the creation of a design review committee that would examine the architectural elements of any proposed regional retail development. It is important to note that any regional retail center development could incorporate specific mitigation measures to alleviate adverse impacts. Such measures could include (proportional) assistance to the City in funding any improvements to the infrastructure (e.g., roads, water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, parks, etc.), or the incorporation of mitigation into the project design to reduce infrastructure improvement demands (e.g., on -site recreation facilities, energy- efficiency modifications and design, water - conserving features, etc.). Specific measures are better identified with project- specific plans and designs that would be prepared following the Council's disposition of the Proposed Action. 6 Section I INTRODUCTION In April 1988, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared for the proposed Orillia Regional Retail Center Rezone and accom- panying proposed amendment to the City of Renton's adopted Comprehensive Plan. A detailed evaluation of the Proposed Action (Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone), site specific alternative development scenarios, and probable environmental impacts were included in the aforementioned DEIS. Since preparation of the DEIS, the City of Renton has expanded the scope of the study to include the examination of a number of possible alternative locations that could be considered for the development of regional retail commercial uses. This Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) complies with the City of Renton's and State's Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Regulations. WAC 197 -11 -440; 5 -d states the following: When a proposal is for a private project on a specific site, the lead agency shall be required to evaluate only the No Action Alterna- tive plus other reasonable alternatives for achieving the proposal's objective on the same site. This subsection shall not apply when the proposal includes a rezone, unless the rezone is for a use allowed in an existing comprehensive plan that was adopted after review under SEPA. Further, alternative sites may be evaluated if other locations for the type of proposed use have not been included or considered in existing planning or zoning documents. This SDEIS includes three sections: the first of which is this introduction. Section II describes the objectives of the Proposed Action; the methodology used for identifying alternative regional retail commercial areas within the City of Renton; and the results of application of the methodology to determine locations for a regional retail commercial center. The third section of the SDEIS profiles the expected environmental impacts associated with the alternative regional retail center locations that were advanced through the application of the methodology described in Section II. This section characterizes the existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures of each of the alternative regional retail center locations. The assessment includes an examination of Land Use, Transportation, Utilities and Services, and Economics. Section III also provides additional environmental analysis on the effects of the Proposed Action. This analysis supplements the material on the Orillia Center Rezone Site that was presented in the DEIS. The supple- mental information includes a more detailed evaluation of potential wetlands on the site, and an examination of the regional retail center's potential impacts on additional adjacent and nearby transportation facilities. 7 Section II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION This section of the SDEIS provides a discussion of the Proposed Action that, if adopted, would amend the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan text by establishing regional commercial policies. The Proposed Action also proposes to amend an area representing approximately 68 acres on the Compre- hensive Plan Map in order to implement those policies. These amendments would provide the foundation for a proposed rezone that, if approved, would enable the development of an approximately 46 -acre regional retail center located at the northwest intersection of S.W. 41st Street and East Valley Road. Included in this section are a restatement of the objectives of the Proposed Action, and a restatement of the proposed regional commercial district objective and policies as identified in the DEIS. This section also includes a description of the methodology used to identify alternative locations for a regional retail center in the City. The results of the application of this methodology are discussed and are included in a matrix that summarizes the suitability of alternative locations. Section III of this SDEIS reviews the land use, transportation, and public services and utilities impacts associated with the two alternative regional retail commercial center locations that were selected through the application of the methodology. Environmental analysis of the proposed rezone request is presented in the DEIS and Section IIIc of this SDEIS. B. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The objective of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to allow and encourage the development of a regional retail center that would serve the South End market, which encompasses an area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, May Valley Road on the north, 196th Avenue S.E. on the east, and the Auburn Municipal Golf Course on the south (Clarke, 1988; Conger and Clarke, 1988b). This area has the potential for substantial future population and commercial growth as compared to the more fully developed areas north of the City. C. THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT As described in the DEIS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would: 8 . establish new regional commercial policies for the City; . amend specific commercial policies for the Green River Valley Planning Area; and . amend the Comprehensive Plan Map in the Green River Valley Planning Area to change the designation of approximately 68 acres from Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option (MP /MO) to Commercial. The draft text of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (presented at a workshop of the Renton Planning Commission on September 9, 1987) with minor revisions is detailed below. (NOTE: For purposes of the draft, underlines (x) are used for added text; overstrikes (4) are used for deletions; and unmarked lines denote existing text.) General Goals, Objectives, and Policies (The City's Commercial Goal, on page 16 of the Comprehensive Plan, would not be revised): POLICIES ELEMENT V. COMMERCIAL GOAL: TO PROMOTE ATTRACTIVE, CONVENIENT, VIABLE SYSTEMS OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES The Commercial area's objectives (A. through E.) on pages 16 -18 of the Comprehensive Plan, would not be revised. A new objective (F.) would be added to page 18, together with the following new proposed regional commercial policies: F. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE: A regional commercial area should be located in the Green River Valley and should provide a node of retail services and sales opportunities to take advantage of the broader South End market. POLICIES: 1. A regional commercial area should be located within easy access of a freeway and at the intersection of two arterials. 2. A regional commercial area should be developed with a single theme and with a central focus. 3. A regional commercial area shall not include strip retail components. 4. A regional commercial area should predominantly provide those sales and service opportunities which are oriented to a broader regional market and should strictly limit retail activities which are better suited to neighborhood commercial areas. 5. Pedestrian oriented amenities should be encouraged. 9 6. Common parking facilities should be constructed. 7. Ample landscaping should be provided throughout the site, including along property lines, to provide a pleasant environment, minimize the impact of development and enhance the visual experience from adjacent properties. 8. Site plan review should be required for regional commercial development. 9. Design standards or restrictive covenants executed between property owners and subsequent tenants or purchasers should be encouraged. 10. A contract rezone should be used wherever feasible to establish time limits and conditions for development. Subsection E of this section states the proposed commercial policies for the Green River Valley Planning Area and describes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Pages eight and nine of the DEIS present background information on-the existing Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Amendment. D. METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR A REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER IN THE CITY OF RENTON The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires an analysis of reasonable alternatives to a Proposed Action. These are alternatives that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost. The DEIS examined the impacts that could occur with the development of a regional retail center and also examined impacts of development alternatives that would have a lower environmental cost than the proposal. The DEIS did not address the potential for alternative locations for the Proposed Action; that is the principal focus of this SDEIS. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGY The methodology used to identify suitable potential alternative locations for regional retail centers is characterized by the following steps: 1. Criteria indicative of the qualities of a viable regional retail center location were identified. 2. The criteria were grouped in terms of two categories of signifi- cance: consistency with the locational requirement as stated in the first of the ten proposed policies that would implement the regional commercial district objective; and consistency with the criteria crucial to the viability of a regional retail center at a given location. 10 The only proposed regional commercial policy that affects location is Policy Number 1, which states that, "A regional commercial area should be located within easy access of a freeway and at the inter- section of two arterials." The City considers I -405 and SR -167 to be the freeways within its boundaries, whereas the arterials are defined in the existing Comprehensive Plan's Circulation Element (Map 2 in the Comprehensive Plan). 3. Based upon the application of Policy Number 1, the City identified those locations that are candidates for a regional retail center. Those candidate locations then were evaluated with respect to the criteria. Locations then were selected for further environmental analysis (Section III of this SDEIS). DISCUSSION OF SITE SELECTION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA The following discussion provides background information on those criteria that were used in the site selection process and in the evaluation of each of the seven locations that are within easy access of a freeway and at the intersection of two arterials. Site selection and evaluation is a crucial element in the location of a regional retail center that will effectively achieve its market potential. The City of Renton applied the following primary criteria to the identifica- tion of possible locations for a regional retail center: . Consistency with the Proposed Commercial Policy Number 1; . Suitable access and efficient circulation of a site /area; . Visibility of the site /area; . Compatible land use; . Adequacy of site size; . Municipal feasibility and favorable implications of development; and . Absence of severe environmental constraints. The following brief discussion of these criteria explains their application in identifying a site suitable for a proposed regional retail center. Consistency with the Proposed Commercial Policy Number 1 As noted above, the first proposed regional commercial policy is the only proposed policy that would constrain the location of a regional retail center in the City of Renton. This policy states that a regional commercial area should be located within easy access of a freeway and at the intersection of two arterials. Suitable Access and Efficient Circulation A successful retail facility must effectively serve its identified trade area. A relatively central position provides a suitable location for a retail center. (Travel time within the trade area is a better determinant of "central position" than geographic distance from the market. Travel time is dependent upon highway condition, road distance, speed, and the level of 11 service.) Any site that is removed from a central location reduces its ability to serve effectively the identified market. Notwithstanding its central location, a regional retail center must be accessible by the market's population. According to the Urban Land Institute, regional commercial centers should be located where the site is easily accessible from interchange points between freeways and similar routes (ULI, 1985). A location that is easily reached implies short distances and ease of driving for customers, employees and service vehicles (ULI, 1985). The motorists' perception of ease of access is crucial: for example, a center that is accessed by right turns, particularly for com- muters returning home, can increase the perceived ease of access and can increase the patronage of a center. Traffic circulation also is a key component of a viable center's acces- sibility. A potential center's viability is enhanced by traffic conditions that are free flowing as one travels to and enters the site (ULI, 1985). Separating traffic originating at or destined for high activity centers from regional traffic also increases the ease of circulation (ULI, 1985). This can be accomplished by locating access and exit points about one mile from regional freeways (ULI, :1985) and /or by providing a sufficient road network (particularly stacking lanes) and signage to direct cars to and from regional freeways. Distance from an interchange may range from one -half to one mile, depending on local circumstances (ULI, 1985). Visibility Successful regional retail facilities must be strategically located so as to be visible from substantial volumes of passing traffic on the adjacent freeway and arterials. Sites that are obscured from view by topographic, structural or vegetation barriers are not as likely to be successful retail facilities as sites that are more visible from freeways, expressways, or major arterial streets. Sites also may be less visible due to distance or due to their location relative to other uses. Moreover, good visibility improves a center's accessibility (ULI, 1985). "Even though traffic flow attracts retail business, a site that fronts on a highway heavily built up with strings of competing distractions (including signs) is less accessible" (ULI, 1985). Compatible Land Use The compatibility of adjacent uses also is an important criterion with respect to both the center's impact on nearby land uses as well as the perception of the center through its association with the nearby uses. Although the ULI does not articulate specific guidelines for defining compatible uses, the compatibility of commercial areas with adjacent land uses is an explicit policy in the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. Similar to ULI, the Comprehensive Plan does not specify compatible land uses, however, in a general sense, compatible land uses are land uses whose facilities and activities do not significantly affect one another. 12 Suitable land uses, in terms of the compatibility of a regional center, include commercial, recreational, and institutional uses. Less suitable adjacent uses are characterized by industrial activities: although heavy industrial uses are less appropriate than light industrial uses. In certain instances the development of a regional retail center may be opposed if there are adjacent or nearby residential uses that are not sufficiently protected from a regional center's adverse environmental impacts, such as traffic, noise, or aesthetics. Optimal Size The ULI identifies a regional retail center as requiring a minimum of 10 -60 acres, preferably with a regular parcel configuration. A super regional retail center (a center with three or more full -line department stores) requires 15 to 100 or more acres. Successful smaller -sized regional centers would occur in metropolitan centers with superb access by mass transit and multiple story structures for both shops and parking. According to the applicant, in a more suburban setting, such as the Renton area, the center should encompass a minimum of thirty (30) to fifty (50) acres. This acreage range would provide sufficient area for a regional retail center and also accommodate the potential for expansion. The long -term viability of a regional retail center is based on its ability to maintain site development flexibility, particularly as it relates to the provision of sufficient parking, the ability to expand to meet growing consumer demands, and the ability to incorporate site amenities that benefit the consumers. Municipal Implications of Development The ULI criteria for the evaluation of sites do not include a means for assessing the implications of regional retail development on the jurisdiction's short- and long -term fiscal picture. In addition to the ULI criteria there are several considerations that are important in the City of Renton's deliberation of a suitable location for a regional retail center. Considerations expressed by the City include: the long -term viability of a particular location with respect to the ability to compete successfully with future centers that could serve the market area; the need for municipal actions, programs and /or funds to supplement the private investment neces- sary to achieve a successful center; redevelopment of existing, tax - generating properties that would eliminate or reduce those properties' existing tax revenues that accrue to the City; and the potential for de- velopment of a regional retail center to proceed in a timely way. THE SELECTION PROCESS Based on the methodology and criteria discussed above, the regional retail center selection process was implemented to evaluate and to select candidate locations for a regional retail center. For the purpose of thorough review, the location selection process was not restricted to areas strictly within the identified market area, although the process was restricted to properties within city limits. 13 The proposed regional commercial policy regarding proximity to the freeway provided the basis for identifying seven possible locations including the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area. Figure 1 shows the respective locations and general study area associated with each alternative considered. The seven possible locations identified by the City by applying the proposed regional commercial policy are: 1. The Orillia Retail Center Area (The Proposed Action); 2. The Longacres Area; 3. The Renton Center Area; 4. The Maple Valley Highway Interchange Area, generally east of I -405 and south of the Maple Valley Highway; 5. The Sunset Interchange Area off I -405; 6. The N.E. 30th Interchange Area off I -405; and 7. The N.E. 44th Interchange Area off I -405. In three locations the City identified specific sites at the inter- changes: For the remaining four locations, generalized areas were identi- fied and reviewed. This process was implemented according to the methodology described above and a matrix (Table 2) was prepared to facilitate comparison of the characteristics associated with each site. Four of the sites (the Maple Valley Highway Interchange Area, the Sunset Interchange Area, the N.E. 30th Street Interchange Area off I -405, and the N.E. 44th Interchange Area off I -405) were eliminated from further consideration due to development constraints. These constraints included distance from the center of the South End Market Area, limited access and /or poor circulation, potential engineering problems relating to topographic or environmental constraints, insufficient visibility from arterial traffic, and /or the implications of development on the municipality. The three locations that were determined to warrant further evaluation in the SDEIS are as follows: Location 1: The Orillia Center Area The Proposed Action is located at the S.W. 41st Interchange with SR -167. A detailed description of the site is presented in the DEIS, and a brief summary of the site follows. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Area encompasses 68 acres, which includes the vacant 46 acre rezone parcel that is proposed for the development of the regional retail center. The site is of sufficient size for development of a regional retail center and offers some area for future growth. The Orillia Center site has good access from the Valley Freeway (SR -167) and East Valley Road, Lind Avenue S.W., and S.W. 43rd, S.W. 41st, and S.W. 34th Streets. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and proposed rezone site can be seen by motorists travelling southward on SR -167. The site is visible for motorists travelling northward, although it is partially obscured by topographic or vegetation barriers. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley Planning Area of the City's Comprehensive Plan. A regional retail center at this location would require an amendment to the Plan map and a rezone from its current zone to a commercial (B -1) classification. 14 LAKE The N.E. 44th INTERCHANGE Area Th'e N.E. 30th INTERCHANGE Area WASHINGTON '\\ \ j r limits 9 \ '. � .11 Z Sv�se The SUNSET FriJ TERCHANGE Area L. N.E. 4th j SR 900 S. r._ The MAPLE VALLEY Ma INTERCHANGE Area r. ND The RENTON CENTER Area The LONGACR Area J 1i J r. J � V The ORILLIA CENTER Area J Figure 1 Potential Regional Retail Center Locations within easy Access of a Freeway and Two Arterials ASStSQ L 15 CRITERIA Accessibility of site/area Compatibility of nearby existing land uses Size of site or area Visibility from freeway and arterial traffic Municipal Implications Configuration Environmental considerations Alternative Location 1 Proposed Action Easy access from the Valley Freeway (SR -167) and East Valley Road, Lind Avenue S.W., and S.W. 43rd, S.W. 41st and S.W. 34th Street. Existing land uses mostly compatible: North: light industriaV office/warehouse; East: vacant, commercial. office/warehouse; South: commercial and office/warehouse; West light industriaV office/warehouse 68-acre Comprehensive Plan Amendment area; 48 -acre rezone area Site Is visible from passing southbound traffic on SR -i67; Site is minimally ob- structed by topographical barriers, particularly for northbound traffic. Capital expenditures for redevelopment are unneces- sary; construction of a regional commensal center would not experience con - struction delay; regional center would add to the existing municipal revenue (development of commercial use on vacant land); regional center could have slight impact on viability of existing commensal uses in Renton. Near rectangular area. Level and at street grade with East Valley Road; less than four acres wet - !ands of minor habitat value. Table 2 SUMMARY OF CONSISTENCY OF ALTERNATIVE REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER LOCATIONS WITH FEASIBILITY CRITERIA Alternative Location II Longacres 1-405 and West Valley Hwy. Circuitous access from 1 -405 and S.W. Grady Way via West Val- ley Highway and East Valley Road. Access from 1-405 also is avail- able via Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway to the west. Access Is available from the north, west, and east Existing land uses mostly compatible: North: single -family residential (trailer park) affiliated with Longacres, industrial park treatment plant; East vacant, office; South: vacant West: vacant/RR/greenbelt, river, commerciai uses. 174 acres (approximately) Site Is visible from 1-405. Construction of a regional com- mercial center could experience delay for land clearance; loss of municipal revenues associated with removal of existing recre- ation use; regional center could have slight impact on viability of existing commercial uses in Renton. Near rectangular area. Level and at grade with S.W. 16th; major wetlands associated with area south of racetrack. Alternative Location III Renton Center SR -900 and SR -167 Access directly from SR -900 and Rainier Avenue South is congested; conges- tion with existing traffic and active BNSF Burlington Northern tracks to south and east. Existing land uses mostly compatible: Renton Center Is an existing community retail center, • North: commensal and single - and multifamily; East: commercial and single- family; West: commensal office park single - family. multi- family, and vacant land. 38.8 acres Site is visible from SR-900 and Rainier Avenue South; not visible from 1 -405. Municipal capital expendi- tures would be necessary to enhance development; con- struction of a regional com- mercial center could be de- layed for land clearance; loss of municipal revenues associated with existing community retail center use; regional center could have slight impact on via- bility of existing commer- cial uses in Renton. Near rectangular area Level topography at exist- ing center; ascending topo -• graphy to west of Hardie Avenue S.W. Alternative Location IV Maple Valley Interchange 1-405 and Made Valley Road Poor access south of 1 -405 due to railroad tracks and Cedar River, north of 1-405 angular cross - streets diminish circula- tion; circuitous local streets in northeast quadrant. Existing land uses mostly compatible: N.E.: single-family. multifamily; S.E.: open space; N.W.: single - family, commercial. heavy industrial; S.W.: commerdaVofflce/public. South: office. car sales, and fight industriaVwarehouse. Area studied includes .5 mile radius from the identified inter- change. Area is partially obstructed from 1-405 due to topography. Area is partialt obstructed from Maple Valley Road due to vegetation and topography. Construction of a regional com- mercial center could be delayed due to land deararoe and/or engineering considerations relating to a bridge and arterial access improvements; loss of municipal revenues could be associated with existing indus- trial and commercial uses; re- gional center could have slight impact on viability of existing commercial uses in Renton; long -term ability to serve Identi- fied market area is uncertain. Configuration of parcels within the study area vary. Could assemble into appropriate configuration. Primarily level north of 1 -405 in northeast intersettion quadrant. Has steep grade to the east and south requiring substantial cut - and -fitL Southeast quadrant has gradual slope ascendng to the northeast; Cedar River should be protected and maintained as the area's unifying image and focus (Cedar River Corridor Stragegy, 1986: 4 Alternative Location V Sunset Interchange and 1-405 Accessibility and circula- tion to northwest and southwest quadrants Is good; poor access to properties in the northeast and southeast quadrants. Existing land uses mostly compatible: N.E.: single- family; S.E.: vacant, strip com- S.E.: vacant, strip com- mercial. multifamily; N.W.: vacant, park; S.W.: heavy industrial Area studied includes .5 mile radius from the identi- fied interchange. Area has poor visibility from 1-405. Construction of a regional commensal center could be delayed due to land clearance and/or engineering consider- ations; loss of municipal revenues associated with redevelopment of existing industrial use to west; reducing existing industrial land use would eliminate expansion areas for industrial uses in the area; long -term ability to serve identified market area is uncertain. Configuration of parcels within the study area vary. Could assemble into appropriate configuration. Fairly level topography In southwest intersection quad- rant. Steep grades to the northeast and southeast of the intersection; substantial cut- and -fill and detailed engineering would be required. Alternative Location VI N.E. 301h and 1-405 Access and circulation limited In northeast and southeast quadrants due to topography and existing land uses; access and circulation in northwest and southwest quadrants Is limited to residential, streets; poor access due to limited east -west j arterials. Existing land uses mostly compatible: N.E: single - family.. park, school; S.E: single- family; N.W.: skills family, neighborhood commercial; S.W.: single- family, . multifamily. Area studied includes .5 mile radius from the idert1- fled interchange. Area west of 1-405 is visible from 1 -405. Construction of a regional commecial center could be delayed due to land clear- ance; potential loss of 1 municipal revenues associ- ated with redevelopment of existing neighborhood com- mercial uses; expanding commensal infringes on the integrity of single - family residential use in the area; long -tern ability to serve Identified market area is uncertain. Configuration of parcels within the study area vary. Could assemble into 1 appropriate configuration. Topography varies between rolling hillsides In northwest and southeast quadrants to substantial slopes in the northeast and southwest quadrants; substantial cut - and -fig would be required in northeast and southwest quadrants; Jones Creek) and neighboring park create re- strictive developable areas to the east Abemative Location VII N.E. 44th and 1-405 Access and circulation is limited in the northwest and southwest quadrants due to topography, existing land uses, and Lake Washington; good accessibility to properties east of 1-405. Existing lard uses mostly compatible: N.E.: multifamily. commercial; S.E.: single - family; N.W.: heavy Industrial S.W.: heavy industrial, single- iamily. Area studied includes .5 mile radius from the identi- fied interchange. Areas west of 1-405 am visible from 1-405. Construction of a regional commensal center could be delayed due to land clear- ance and engineering con- siderations; loss of munici- pal revenues associated with redevelopment of existing commensal and industrial development; long -tern ability to serve identified market area is uncertain. Configuration of parcels within the study area vary. Could assemble ito appropriate configuration. Steep embankment in the southeast quadrant; topo- graphical constraints of hill- , side in southeast quadrant. Limited usable land in the northwest and southwest quadrants due to May Creek. Lake Washington. 16 Existing land uses in the vicinity are a mix of commercial and warehousing /light industrial uses characteristic of the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. Land uses in this area include the Valley Medical Center east of SR -167; and commercial uses, office complexes, warehouses and vacant land to the west of the freeway. These adjacent uses are considered mostly compatible with the proposed regional retail center. The subject site is located near the center of the identified South End Market Area and is an economically viable location for a regional retail center. Of the three alternative regional retail center locations, this alternative has the ability of generating the highest sales volume (Conger and Clarke, 1988b). Although there are multiple owners in the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area, the rezone site is under a single ownership. The 46 -acre rezone site is mostly rectangular with the exception of the southwest corner of the block, which is not a part of the proposed regional retail center site. The proposed regional retail center site has been filled and is absent of physical obstructions and severe constraints. However, the site contains scattered wetland areas (see Section IIIc, below). Land uses along S.W. 41st Street and the east side of East Valley Road in the vicinity of the site are primarily retail with some office /warehouse uses. North of S.W. 41st Street there is a mixture of warehouse and office uses with the latter becoming somewhat more prominent further to the north. Overall, development in the area appears relatively new. Location 2: The Longacres Area This area is the approximately 174 acres located near the I -405 and West Valley Highway interchange. The site is accessible from I -405 via the West Valley Highway and also via Strander Boulevard, which runs from West Valley Highway to Southcenter Parkway to the west. Currently, circuitous access is available from the north, west, and east. However, access to Longacres is constrained by the absence of an arterial network in this portion of the Valley. There also is no access onto northbound I -405 from the West Valley Highway. Much of the site is currently occupied by Longacres, a commercial recreation resource of regional significance. The land use in the Longacres area is greatly influenced by physical barriers, particularly I -405 and the Green River, which appear to represent boundaries for more intensive development outside the Renton portion of the Green River Valley. Much of the land immediately to the west, south, and east of the site is vacant. Land uses adjacent and near the site include single - family residential (associated with the commercial recreational use) to the north, and indus- trial and commercial office uses to the northeast and far to the east of the site. North of S.W. Grady Way, beyond I -405 to the north of the site, are the Renton Treatment Plant, a construction company, and a powerline right -of -way that continues to the south along West Valley Highway. Approximately two - thirds of a mile to the west of Longacres is Southcenter. 17 Between Southcenter and the Green River, approximately one - eighth mile west of Longacres, is a mixture of retail and office uses with greenbelt along the west side of the river. The existing land uses are considered mostly compatible with the development of a regional retail center. In terms of available acres, this site consists of more than three times the amount of land needed for development of a regional retail center, such that consolidation of additional parcels would be unnecessary. The site has good visibility from I -405 and the West Valley Highway. The removal and /or relocation of Longacres to a site outside the City of Renton would result in a loss of existing municipal revenues and employment in the City. In 1988 Longacres generated $222,964 of building license, admissions and property tax and utility tax revenues for the City of Renton. This figure does not include what is probably a substantial amount of sales tax revenue that accrues to the City; that data is proprietary information (Clements, 1988b). The site is level, however, wetlands located to the west of and on the southern end of the site may pose some constraints for development. These wetlands are of greater acreage and potentially higher value than those scattered wetlands on the Orillia Center rezone site, and thus present the possibility of more significant adverse impacts with development. The Longacres area is designated for commercial use in the City's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, development of a regional retail center at this location would be consistent with expressed land use for this area and with the existing B -1 zoning of the site. Poor circulation in the area, the presence of wetlands, and the possible loss of a regional recreational resource and its revenue and jobs reduce the attractiveness of this location as a regional retail center. Furthermore; the site would not achieve the proposal's objectives at a lower or decreased level of environmental degradation. Location 3: The Renton Center Area This location is the existing Renton Center area. Renton Center, located approximately one -half mile north of I -405 and immediately north of, the Burlington Northern tracks, south of SR -900 and immediately west of Rainier Avenue South, is approximately 25.8 acres and is currently developed as a community shopping center, which includes Sears and J.C. Penneys as anchor tenants. In order to provide sufficient area to accommodate a regional retail center, the Renton Center site would need to be expanded. Therefore, for the purpose of this location analysis it is assumed that Hardie Avenue S.W. and S.W. Fifth Place would be vacated and that the approximately 13 acres between Hardie Avenue S.W. and Maple Avenue S.W. would be incorporated into the regional retail center. While Renton Center is accessible from SR -900, Rainier Avenue South, and Hardie Avenue S.W., circulation in the immediate area, particularly along Rainier Avenue South, is severely constrained. 18 Land use in the area of the Renton Center is influenced by natural and man -made physical features. The Renton Center is located at the eastern base of the southernmost portion of the West Hills, a north -south drumlin that lies between Lake Washington and the Duwamish River Valley. The central portion of Renton is situated largely between this feature and the Cedar River to the east. The central portion of Renton extends north to approximately South Second Street and south to approximately the Burlington Northern right -of -way along Houser Way South. Further to the south, I -405 is a prominent physical barrier. In the Skyway /West Hills area to the north across SR -900 (Sunset Boulevard West) are single- and multifamily units and to the east are commercial and residential uses. These residential uses are buffered from the Renton Center by existing commercial development. Immediately to the south of the site are office and car sales uses. Further southwest and south of the site is the Earlington Industrial Park, which includes light manufacturing and warehouse uses. Commercial uses adjacent to the site would be mostly compatible for the development of a regional retail center in this area. Existing residential uses further to the north and east would be sufficiently distant from the Renton Center site so as to be buffered, while west of Maple Avenue S.W. the residential uses would require special treatment (buffering) to be compatible with regional retail center use. The Renton Center area is visible from the north and south travelling along Rainier Avenue South and from the east and west travelling along SR -900. Renton Center's approximately half -mile distance from I -405 and placement among a variety of visual elements reduces its overall visibility to motorists on that freeway. In 1988 Renton Center generated $528,500 in sales tax revenues for the City of Renton (Clements, 1988a). Redevelopment of this area to accommodate a regional retail center may result in the loss of revenues from existing businesses during construction. The development could require the use of municipal funds in order to assist in acquisition of all or part of the site in order to encourage its redevelopment. Other municipal expenditures could be associated with the integration of the Center into an overall land use plan for the downtown area. The Renton Center is under unified ownership with a regular configura- tion; however,-an overhead transmission line does pass through the Center in a north -south direction. Properties within the study area and west of Hardie Avenue S.W. are in multiple ownerships. Adjacent elements that could inhibit the development of the site include the Burlington Northern Railroad track running east -west along the southern property boundary and the probable need to vacate Hardie Avenue S.W. These features prevent expansion of commercial uses outside of the boundaries of the existing Renton Center site. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation and B -1 zoning for the Renton Center are consistent with the existing commercial use and would remain consistent if redevelopment of the existing community retail center 19 to a regional retail center were to occur. The area between Hardie and Maple Avenues S.W. includes an island of property zoned G -1, which would need to be reclassified to accommodate a regional retail center that expands into this area. Although rigorous application of the criteria for selecting alternative locations for a regional retail center would preclude the consideration of the Renton Center area, the Comprehensive Plan encourages retail uses in the downtown Renton area. For that reason, the City of Renton has advanced this alternative for consideration in this SDEIS. E. THE PROPOSED ACTION Under the Proposed Action, which is described in the DEIS, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan would be amended by adding the Regional Commercial District Objective and Policies as described in Subsection C, above. The Green River Valley Policy Plan (page 46 of the Comprehensive Plan) would be amended as described on pages 10 and 11 of the DEIS. For the convenience of the reader, this proposed amendment is repeated: A regional commercial area should be located in the Green River Valley and should provide a node of retail services, businesses, and professional services, and sales opportunities to take advantage of the broader South End market. The regional comercial area should predominantly provide those sales and service opportunities which are oriented to a broader regional market and should discourage retail activities which are better suited to neighborhood commercial areas. The regional commercial area should not include strip retail components. Location Policies Commercial uses are designated in four locations in the Valley. At the extreme southeast corner of the Valley - -north of S.W. 43rd Street and west of SR -167 -- Commercial is designated. This commercial area should extend west to Lind Avenue S.W. and north to S.W. 34th Street. iRe4Rde al•I• owadFaRts- a € - -the *R1;ePseeti•eR -of -STWT -41st - Steel; -and -East -Vall-ey -Read. This area should take advantage of the good exposure and access to provide a range of office, business, service and retail uses. This area should be developed with a node of regional retail commercial uses. No neighborhood or strip commercial activities should be permitted in this regional node. This area is not appropriate for automotive sales or service unless accessory to a primary regional retail commercial use. Policies for the other three locations called out for Commercial use in the Green River Valley Area would remain unchanged under the Proposed Action. 20 Accompanying the Comprehensive Plan text amendment would be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map, as shown in Figure 2. The second element of the Proposed Action is the zone reclassification of the 46 acre Orillia Center site, as shown in Figure 3, from M -P (Manufacturing Park) to B -1 (Business District). A profile of the existing land uses in the area is contained in Section IIIB of the DEIS. F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION LONGACRES AREA LOCATION REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER ALTERNATIVE Under the Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan would be amended by adding the proposed Regional Commercial District Objective and Policies as described in Subsection C, above. The Green River Valley Plan would include the new commercial policy as specified above under the Proposed Action. The fourth Locational Policy under Commercial Land Use policies would be amended as follows: 6engaenes - Raeetnaek and The area bounded by I -405 on the north, the City limits on the west, S.W. 27th Street on the south, and the P -1 Channel Greenbelt on the east aeeness -STWT -16th - Street -fnem - 6engaenes is designated Commercial. The current zoning of the naeetnaek a eM area is B -1 (Business Use) and the uses occurring in this area are primarily commercial in nature. This area should be developed with a node of regional retail commercial uses. No neighborhood or strip commercial activities should be permitted in this regional node. This area is not appropriate for automotive sales or service unless accessory to a primary regional retail comercial use. Policies for the other three locations called out for Commercial use in the Green River Valley Area would remain unchanged under this Alternative. Under this alternative it would not be necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map or to reclassify the subject property, which is zoned B -1, and, therefore, can accommodate regional retail commercial uses. The existing land use and zoning in the Longacres area is profiled in Section IIIB, below. RENTON CENTER AREA LOCATION REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER ALTERNATIVE Under the Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan would be amended by adding the proposed Regional Commercial District Objective and Policies. 21 SW 34th St. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL Y11111111111' SW 39th St 11111111111giiii-i-i-F111.111 1 SW 41st St. a,.,••L,.... ......... • •••• a �• a • • ' ■•• ■• •■•• ■•• ••• ••• � City Limits r City of Kent ��� Figure 2 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area City of Renton 0 300 600 Scale in Feet CIO& a 22 SW 34th St. PROPOSED B -1 ZONE 11 1 111 c c Ilfflillff c�FIIJVIII! :SLLiLUZ.14� SW 41st St. SW43rdSt. C. of Renton City Limits � City of Kent .w .■••••■■••■■•■•• ..■■••■■• „ Figure 3 Proposed Rezone Area City of Renton 0 300 600 Scale in Feet SHAPI IZU& AS,SCQIATES' The Regional Commercial District Objective would be essentially the same as under the Proposed Action; however, it would be inconsistent with the proposed objective of establishing regional retail commercial use in the Green River Valley. The implementing policies, as described in Subsection C, above, would remain the same as under the Proposed Action or the Longacres Area Regional Center Alternative. The Renton Center Area Regional Retail Center Alternative is located in central Renton, within the boundaries of the Central Area Plan area. Under the Renton Center Area Regional Retail Center Alternative, it would be necessary to amend the Commercial Development Objective and to add the following: A regional commercial area should be located in the downtown Renton area and should provide a node of retail services, businesses, and professional services, and sales opportunities to take advantage of the broader South End market. The regional commercial area should predominantly provide those sales and service opportunities which are oriented to a broader regional market and should discourage retail activities which are better suited to neighborhood commercial areas. The regional commercial area should not include strip retail components. The area bounded by Rainier Avenue South on the east, ,the railroad tracks on the south, Maple Avenue S.W. on the west and SR -900 on the north should be developed with a node of regional retail commercial uses. No neighborhood or strip commercial activities should be permitted in this regional node. This area is not appropriate for automotive sales or service unless accessory to a primary regional retail comercial use. Under this alternative it would not be necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map. Expansion of the Renton Center site to the west would require the reclassification of a parcel .(see Figure 7, below), which is currently zoned G -1. The land use as established by the Comprehensive Plan and zoning in the. Renton Center area is profiled in Section IIIB, below. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative there would be no revision to the Comprehensive Plan text or map. There would be no reclassification of the Orillia Retail Center site. Site development at the subject property could occur under the existing M -P zone. This alternative is described on pages 18 and 19 in the DEIS. 24 G. BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DELAYING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Benefits associated with delaying project implementation include the near -term avoidance of adverse environmental impacts associated with the development and operation of a regional retail center. Disadvantages of delaying project implementation include the possi- bility of another regional retail center being developed to capture the South End market, but outside the City of Renton limits. Such an occurrence could result in the City of Renton acquiring some portion of the adverse environmental impacts, such as added traffic and increased road maintenance, but would not result in the City receiving center- generated benefits, such as revenues. 25 Section III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES A. INTRODUCTION This section of the SDEIS is organized into three subsections, the first of which is this introduction. The second subsection includes a description of the land use characteristics of the Longacres Area Regional Retail Center Alternative and the Renton Center Area Regional Retail Center Alternative, a discussion of the relationship of those alternatives to relevant land use plans and policies, and description of transportation, public utilities and services, and economic impacts with respect to the development of those alternatives. The third subsection presents supplementary analysis of the Plants and Animals resources that exist on the proposed Orillia Center Rezone site and the implications of development on those resources. It also includes a supplementary analysis of transportation impacts associated with development of a regional retail center at the Orillia Center Rezone site. B. ALTERNATIVE REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER LOCATIONS LAND USE This subsection characterizes existing land uses, Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning in the vicinity of the alternative locations for a regional retail commercial center, and assesses potential land use changes that could occur as a result of the development of a regional retail center on each of the sites. Affected Environment Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative This site is located in the northwest portion of the Green River Valley Planning Area of Renton. This planning area, in which the Proposed Action also is located, is bounded by the Green River on the west, S.W. 43rd Street on the south, the base of Talbot Hill on the east, and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks on the north. As described in the previous section of this SDEIS, the Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative is adjacent to the Tukwila City Limits, which are immediately west of Longacres Drive Southwest (see Figure 4). Therefore, in profiling land use in the area of the alternative, it is important to characterize nearby land uses that actually are located in Tukwila, as well as those that are in the City of Renton. 26 o�000p000 ` ■ ■1. °•000 000p0 •. 1■...■•••I. .M 11•.!11 0 0 0 0 0 •: •1.IwE..II 5 ,.� n EMI 101 . •••.111•.1 ?[ iiar WOO a•s■.■ mum ■E■■ sass 1.■ nom ••E►• seam ammo 'as my as uu • • .�.... - ..111. ��' 44 ../ uu.�eiO•t�• aim un 1•.r:1•r <I •1.1••1•••' • •OE:MEIY •15/.1•• ``,, 1111•• • .a.. ..saa•• --- I• vs_ .0 tIU•1, slommiest nu Elia ••• OA mamas r., M I••.SE1 •1- VO„.. y� . �, SWIM WAN x'4•:4 r:,, }' • •T ` •' �°,,s M« 9411. 5.5•.51 1 • ° • 111•01• •••••••. ••00o •••••••fi 1.4.•..51 •000 1 N •000 1 I • • ,•S. • •••••• .•••••••111 000003 •' - - -_ 00000 °o°od - - - - - 000000000 •• 0000000000•- 0000000000• -.- 0000co00000 000°0000000•.•. 000000000000•',. 00°0000000000 00000°00000000•• 000000000000000 - 00000000000000 0000000000000. 00000000000•^ 0000000 000 00 0 • •• • II •• 7 0 • f \ MEMO mmmmm ,EME•EE• MISMOOMMO ■ ■.EM mmmmm •• •• O.0: 4444 •.. 4444 • • • • • • • • • • 1111 • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• 11.11 • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • •4 • • .11•I A•1 •• 1• •I :.•w •M•■ •Ir:.�\0.•1.. ■• • \.1.• ••III 71.1 •MM 110.1 ME.1 SI mm .1O 11•• •/111110 1' ��1 ■... ..........■ � � ,:4444 :........ . Ole - - , 0 - - , ;v•' 000• �f... 000- i -•101010• `1.1•••••••••1 •• •. •11.11• ••••'. • • • • •'. • • • . • • • • • • •11.11• ••• • • • • • • • 11,10 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .•• •••••.•••• ••• ••••••••• .•• •••••.•••• • • • •••••••• • ••• °• • ••• •11••.' • • • °2^41.0%.4.0.0. 0 ( • •11•• • • • •.••' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • ••• . •11.11••. • • • • • . • • • • • :•• ' • • • • • ._ •••••••• •••••••••.... • • • • • • • •'• •00 • • • • • • • • • o :.:rrr.:.:g8000f • • • • • •.....• O00001 • • . • • • • 30°00 O 0• •11.11•• •11••••• •••10•,00) • • • • • • • • • • •o„r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••/,' • • • :11.11 ••'•••••�••••••' ••••• ••••'••••.••••, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.• •.f • • • • • • • • • • -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 ••• ••••.•••• r _ • • • • • • • • • • 11.11••• ••••••••••••••t •• �•• • • ra. •11.11•••: •�•� 11.11•' S•••••� +II ./ •••••.••• • • �\Q•� •4 • • • , • • ' `‘'-• • • • •••• • •! • •i I -405 is a physical feature that separates land uses north and south of the Interstate. To the west, the Green River serves as a physical barrier. Both of these physical features constrain traffic movement because of limited crossing opportunities. In part, these features have influenced land use in the general area. North of the Interstate as well as west of the Green River (in Tukwila), land uses are generally more intensive than land use in the Green River Valley (that part of Renton that is east of the Green River). Land uses within the general area of this site include a mix of com- mercial office and light industrial uses reflective of the Comprehensive Plan designation (see Figure 4) and zoning (see Figure 5), as well as park- land and open space. Much of the area east of the West Valley Highway (SR -181) is undeveloped. The Longacres site, approximately 174 acres in size, is bordered by S.W. 16th Street on the north, greenbelt to the east, approximately S.W. 27th Street, if extended, on the south, and the City limits on the west. The site currently is used as a horse race track, associated sales offices, horse stables, and parking. A substantial portion of the site is occupied by structures associated with the race track. I -405 runs in an east -west direction directly to the north of the site, and the City of Tukwila cor- porate boundary is immediately to the west. Approximately two - thirds of a mile to the west is Southcenter (located in Tukwila) with retail and office uses and parkland and open space in the area between Southcenter and Longacres. Directly to the north of the site, south of I -405 and north of S.W. 16th Street, is a small residential area associated with the racetrack. Further to the east along S.W. 16th Street is a mix of light industrial and commercial.. office uses, as well as a Puget Sound Power and Light Company substation. Vacant land is immediately adjacent to the site on the east. Further to the east along Lind Avenue S.W. is a mix of vacant parcels and commercial office uses. At the intersection of Lind Avenue S.W. and S.W. 27th Street is an oil storage facility and a second Puget Power substation. Land to the south of the site is largely undeveloped. The Longacres area is designated Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. Light industrial use is designated north of I -405. The majority of the remaining area (see Figure 4 in SDEIS) is designated Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option (MP /M0), which offers flexibility in land use. The Longacres site is zoned B -1, with the surrounding area zoned B -1, M -P and 0 -P. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative This site is located in the central portion of the Central Planning Area of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. This planning area is bounded by I -405 on the east, the Burlington Northern railroad tracks on the south, unincorporated King County on the west, and SR -900 on the north. The Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative is bordered by Rainier Avenue South on the east, Maple Avenue S.W. on the west, the railroad tracks on the south, and SR -900 on the north. The area of the Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative is 28 Figure 5 Existing Zoning in the Longacres Area City of Renton LEGEND City of Tukwila: RA Agricultural R3 Three and four family residential C2. Regional Retail CM Industrial Park M1 Light Industry City of Renton: G1 - General - Single family MP - Manufacturing park B1 - Business use OP - Office park P1 - Public Use ASSQEIATES� approximately 38.8 acres in size, of which 25.8 acres are currently used as a shopping center with another undeveloped 13 acres located west of Renton Center between Hardie and Maple Avenues S.W. The existing 25.8 acre Renton Center is a community -scale retail center that is anchored by Sears and Penney's. A high voltage transmission line runs north -south through the site. Land use in the general area of the Renton Center has been influenced by topography and the road system. The center is located at the west end of the valley floor, at the base of the West Hills (the Skyway area). This level area has been conducive to the development of land uses that require relatively flat terrain (i.e., commercial and industrial uses) and also supports residential areas that in the past were developed on properties with limited development constraints. Immediately to the west and north of the site there are relatively steep rises in topography. Approximately one -half mile to the south of Renton Center is I -405, which is an obstruc- tion to north -south travelling traffic. The state routes in the area of the Renton Center also have been determinants of land use, with commercial properties locating on these arterials. These routes are SR -900, which runs east -west through the central area and is directly north of the Renton Center, and SR -167 (the East Valley Highway), which turns into Rainier Avenue South and is immediately east of the Center. Land uses within the general area of this site include a mix of commercial retail uses reflec- tive of the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning, with small pockets of residential and light industrial use. Commercial retail uses border the site on the north, east and south. Further to the east, between Shattuck Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South, is an older single - family residential area. West of the site (west of Maple Avenue S.W.) and northwest of the site, past the commercial uses that front SR -900, are residential land uses. Land to the southwest of the site is developed in commercial office, light industrial and warehouse uses. Figure 4 in this SDEIS shows existing Comprehensive Plan designations for this site area and Figure 6 illustrates existing zoning. The site, and much of the land surrounding it, is zoned B -1, consistent with the Commercial Land Use designation. There is one parcel within the boundaries of the center area that is zoned G -1. Areas to the northwest and southeast beyond the commercial areas are zoned residential. A small area to the southwest is zoned M -P (manufacturing park). Orillia Comprehensive Plan Amendment Area The land use element for this alternative is described on page 49 and shown on page 51 of the DEIS. Existing zoning for this site is shown on page 53 of the DEIS. Significant Impacts As described on pages 60 -61 of the DEIS, physical development could be characterized by the construction and operation of approximately 1.1 million gross square feet of regional retail commercial space. The establishment of a regional retail center would add a major new concentra- tion of businesses with a larger trade and service area than any center that currently exists in the City of Renton. 30 ,?Y limits P -1 Ct P M -P B -1 600' scale- Figure 6 Existing Zoning in the Renton Center Area City of Renton G-1 R -1 R -2 R -3, R -4 M-P 8-1 L -1 P -1 General Single - Family Residential Single - Family Residential Two - Family Residential Multiple- Family Manufacturing Park Business Use Light Industrial Public Use SHAPIRO& ASSQEIATESX 31 The development of a regional retail center that serves the South End Market Area would result in a redistribution of the sales of comparative goods that currently are being purchased by the South End Market population at other retail centers. In order to assess the potential for a redistri- bution in sales to affect the viability of commercial centers and, thereby, affect the vitality of land uses at the affected center locations, a market analysis was performed (see Economics chapter below). The market analysis estimated the sales impact of the development of a regional retail center on other comparison goods retailers that currently serve the market. Based on the change in sales relative to total sales volume at each of the other centers, an assessment of the land use implications of the alternative regional retail centers has been made. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Under this alternative, there would be a change to the Comprehensive Plan text, however, no changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map would be necessary in order to accommodate a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location. Development of this site as a regional retail center would permanently replace the existing race track use, which is a unique commercial recrea- tion facility and a significant local source of revenue. In addition, employment would be lost to the City. The City of Renton has determined that the loss of Longacres would result in a loss of property, utility and admission taxes, and business license fees of $222,964 (Clements, 1988b). The City would lose a substantial amount of sales tax revenue, which cannot be quantified because it is proprietary information. Because only approxi- mately 50 acres of the 174 -acre site would be developed as a regional re- tail center, increased commercial development pressure could occur on the remaining area. The attraction of the area for more compatible retail and office commercial uses would likely increase the disparity between existing nearby industrial uses and the regional retail center. Over time pressures for changes in land uses adjacent and /or near to the site (e.g., displacement of existing industrial uses) would be likely because of changes in perception of the area and probable changes in land values. Assuming that construction proceeds in phases with 600,000 square feet completed in 1990 and 400,000 square feet completed in 1995, sales volume at a regional retail center at Longacres is projected to be $102 million in 1990, $180 million in 1995, and $200 million in 2000 (Conger and Clarke, Inc. 1988b). These sales volumes would be approximately 15% less than those sales that are projected at a regional retail center at the Orillia Center site (Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b). For each of the three regional retail center site location alterna- tives as well as the No Action Alternative, Table 11 in the Economics chapter below presents the projected sales volumes in 1990, 1995, and 2000 for comparative goods at each of the affected retail centers. If a regional retail center were developed at the Longacres Area Location, then, in 1995 with the exception of free - standing furniture stores, the majority 32 of the studied centers would be expected to have total sales reduced by approximately 8 -12 %, compared to 1988 levels without a center. Impacts generally would be reduced to less than 1% by the year 2000. Although these losses in sales could result in adverse impacts on specific businesses within these centers and other commercial areas, it is not expected that the impacts would be of sufficient magnitude to cause changes in land use. The potential impacts of a regional retail center on the downtown Renton area was addressed specifically in the market analysis, which offered the following observations and conclusions: "Locationally, shopping facilities in the South End Market Area have been decentralized from downtown locations since the late 1960s with the advent of suburban shopping centers like Southcenter Mall. Downtown Renton is affected by the same conditions that have caused the central business districts of Bremerton and Everett to become secondary destinations for shoppers. These conditions impact both convenience and comparison goods shopping facilities. The downtown retail district of Renton is not expected to regain its original prominence due to access and parking constraints, as well as competition from suburban shopping facilities. Downtown Renton's role is expected to be one that attracts service and office oriented establishments, with a limited amount of shopping facilities." "The survey of downtown Renton is focused on the central business district. For this report, downtown Renton is represented by the area bounded by S. 2nd Street on the north, t1i11 Avenue S. to the east, S. 4th St. to the south and Shatluck Avenue South to the west. The major commercial intersection in downtown Renton is S. 3rd Street and Burnett Avenue South. The majority of downtown Renton is devoted to non - comparison goods establishments such as: Auto Sales /Repair /Parts Grocery and Convenience Stores Hardware Cleaners Small Offices Banks Restaurants Taverns Government Buildings Equipment Rental Shop Theater Drug Stores Travel Agencies Print Shops Loan Shops Funeral Home Clubs /Organizations Thrift Shop Antique Shops Of the comparison goods establishments in Downtown Renton, most are small specialty shops like jewelry stores, flower shops, sporting goods stores and similar businesses. Additionally, there are a few furniture stores and a limited number of clothing stores. K -Mart is also included. The total inventory of comparison goods retail space in Downtown Renton is estimated at 130,000 square feet including K -Mart at 60,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet of apparel stores, 30,000 square feet of furniture stores and 30,000 square feet of specialty shop space. At the present time, there are no general merchandise stores in Downtown Renton." 33 "Because of the existing inventory of commercial activities, which is concentrated in non comparison goods establishments, downtown Renton is not expected to be significantly impacted by the development of a regional retail center in the South End Market Area." The potential would exist for a future center being developed at a location more accessible to the identified South End Market population. Such a development could divert sales from a regional retail center at the Longacres location and potentially jeopardize the viability of the center. Such .a scenario could have an influence on land use at a developed regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Assuming that redevelopment of the Renton Center were to proceed in phases with 600,000 square feet completed in 1990 and 400,000 square feet completed in 1995, sales volume at a regional retail center at the Renton Center is projected to be $96 million in 1990, $170 million in 1995, and $190 million in 2000 (Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b). If a regional retail center were developed at the Renton Center Area Location, then, in 1995 with the exception of free - standing furniture stores, all but one of the studied centers and areas would be expected to have total sales reduced by approximately 7 -12 %, compared to 1988 levels without a center (see Table 11 in the Economics chapter). By the year 2000 sales impacts would be reduced to less than 1 %. Although these losses in sales could result in adverse impacts on specific businesses within these centers and studied commercial areas, they would be lesser than the Longacres alternative and, therefore, would be less likely to be of sufficient magnitude to cause changes in land use. Increased commercial activity in the Renton Center Area could be beneficial to the downtown area because some downtown businesses could be able to attract customers that patronize the regional center. The change in sales impacts on downtown Renton are projected to be slightly less than under the Longacres alternative (see Table 11). Development of the Renton Center Area Location as a regional retail center would transform or replace the existing commercial uses. It is possible, however, that some portion of the existing uses would locate in space in the new regional retail center or would relocate in the central area. Increased development pressure likely would not occur in nearby areas, much of which already is developed in commercial uses, however, over time pressures for redevelopment could occur in residential areas to the east, which already are surrounded by commercial and light industrial uses. Vacation of that portion of Hardie Avenue S.W. that is north of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and S.W. Fifth Place may be necessary in order to achieve optimal size and design flexibility for a regional retail center. Such a vacation would remove a constraint to the ability of a center to expand to the approximately 13 acres of vacant, undeveloped property west of the existing center and enable the development of a larger, more functional, and unified center. 34 In examining the viability of Renton Center as a potential location for a regional retail center, the market analyst concluded the following: "In our opinion, the lack of visibility and direct access from Interstate 405 (I -405) are significant obstacles to the development of this site as a regional retail location. Regional retail malls, like Southcenter for example, require freeway visibility and access characteristics provided by freeway interchange locations" (Conger and Clarke, 1988b). The presence of these obstacles present a certain risk with request to redevelopment of the Renton Center to a regional retail center. The poten- tial would exist for a future center being developed at a location more ac- cessible to the identified South End Market population. Such a development could divert sales from a regional retail center at the Renton Center lo- cation and potentially jeopardize the viability of the center. Such a scenario could have an influence on land use at the redeveloped Renton Center. Orillia Comprehensive Plan Amendment Area The impacts discussion for this alternative begins on page 54 of the DEIS. As illustrated in Table 11, the development of a regional retail center at the Orillia Center site would result in a loss of (1995) sales revenues of approximately 11 -18% (of total sales) at the comparison goods retailers in the South End Market Area. These sales losses are projected to decrease to 6% or less by the year 2000. As with the other two alterna- tives, these losses in sales could result in adverse impacts on specific businesses within these centers and studied commercial areas. It is not expected that these losses would be of sufficient magnitude to cause changes in land use. Mitigating Measures See page 62 -63, DEIS. 35 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES This discussion describes the relationship of the proposed regional commercial policies associated with the Longacres Area Alternative and the Renton Center Avenue Alternative, to certain of the most relevant elements of the Comprehensive Plan. This discussion complements the analysis presented in Section IIIA of the DEIS, which focused on the relationship of the Orillia Center Site area to the same set of elements of the Compre- hensive Plan. The proposed regional commercial policies are presented in Section II, above. . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - GENERAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (PAGES 8 -26 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) I. Environmental Goal: To establish and maintain a harmonious relationship between the developed community and its natural environment. Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #7 encourages ample landscaping to provide a pleasant environment. Adequate landscaping in a regional commercial area could be developed to provide open space and minimize erosion and sedimentation. Landscaped areas could be designed to incorporate surface water drainage features and, thereby, enhance runoff water quality. Landscaped areas also could provide wildlife habitat. Regional Commercial Policy #3 requires that a regional commercial area develop with a single theme and a central focus. This proposed policy provides the basis for design elements that could create an internal site harmony, thereby facilitating the creation of a design theme, such as one emphasizing landscaping that could be harmonious with the natural environment. Moreover, Regional Commercial Policy #8, which requires site plan review, and Regional Commercial Policy #10, which encourage contract rezones, would provide the means by which regional retail commercial development projects could be evaluated to ensure that site plans, design elements and other project features are harmonious with the natural setting. There could be a greater loss of environmental amenities with the development of a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location than with any other alternative site. The wetlands could be constraints on the development of the site. The large areas of open space would be significantly reduced and some possible wetlands may be lost. Retention of open space and wetland locations could be considered and reviewed consistent with the provisions of proposed regional commercial Policies 7, 8 and 10. The Renton Center site has fewer environmental amenities than either the Orillia Center location or Longacres. The 36 existing shopping center, which was developed several years ago, offers few amenities in terms of landscaping, fountains, plazas, or covered areas, and has no discernable theme or central focus. The existing buildings and parking areas would be constraints to expanding the center to meet Policies 3 and 7. The expansion of the center west of Hardie Avenue S.W. would require removal of vegetation and considerable earth movement to establish a suitable site. Particularly in the northwestern portion of the alternative site, stabilization measures, such as retaining walls, could detract from the harmonious transition from commercial to the natural environment. Policies 8 and 10 would enable the City to encourage compliance with Policies 3 and 7. Policies 8 and 10 would enable the City to encourage compliance with Policies 3 and 7 to the greatest degree practicable. II. Economic Goal: To promote a sound, diversified economic base. Both the Longacres Area Location and Renton Center Location would be vulnerable to future retail centers located in a more advantageous position relative to the South End market. III. Urban Design Goal: To promote aesthetic and functional harmony and to provide a proper balance of residential, commercial and industrial areas. Comment: The development of a regional retail center in the City would increase the diversity of uses in the City of Renton. The extent to which a regional retail center would promote aesthetic and functional harmony would depend upon the specific qualities of the developed center. V. Commercial Goal: To promote attractive, convenient, viable systems of commercial facilities. Commment: Because of a regional retail center's position at Longacres or Renton Center relative to the South End market, the long -term viability may be in jeopardy. Either center would be vulnerable to a future center being in a more advantageous position relative to the South End market. A. Commercial Areas Objective: Sound commercial areas should be created and /or maintained and declining areas revitalized. Comment: Approval of the proposed Regional Commercial District Objective encourages the creation of a "sound commercial area, which is a regional commercial area that is intended to serve the South End Market." The proposed regional commercial policies do not encourage revitalization of a declining commercial area. The development of a regional retail center that serves the.South End market would reduce the sales of comparison goods in downtown Renton and other commercial areas both out of and in the City of Renton (see Table 11 in the Economics chapter). As described earlier, the sales reduction impact would be greatest in 1995, the projected year of buildout of the one million square foot center, and then would decrease over time. The'development of a regional retail center at Longacres would reduce sales of comparison goods in downtown Renton (see Table 11 in the Economics chapter). The proposed regional retail center would compete for the comparison retail market niche, which is a market that is not extensively served by downtown retail businesses (Conger and Clarke, 1988b). It would be possible that a future regional retail center, either in or outside of the City of Renton, could be developed in a more advantageous location to capture the South End market (Clarke, 1988). 38 The development of a regional retail center at the Renton Center location would serve to revitalize that center. The redevelopment of Renton Center into a regional retail center would result in a loss of sales of comparison goods in downtown Renton and other commercial areas; however, the loss of sales would not be as great as under the Longacres Area Location Alternative or Orillia Center Alternative (see Table 11). In part the loss would not be as great because Renton Center's "lack of visibility and direct access from Interstate 405" would result in the regional retail center's having lower sales than the other alternatives (Conger and Clarke, 1988b). Because of these inferior locational characteristics the Renton Center location poses some risk as a long -term viable location for a regional retail center. Policies 1. Commercial zoning should be allowed only to the extent of short -term needs. Comment: The regional commercial policies would allow development of commercial uses for which there is a current need (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988b). 2. In a residential planned unit development, commercial facilties should be limited. Comment: This policy does not apply to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment area. 3. To improve access, planned clusters of commercial development should be encouraged, and commercial strip areas should be discouraged. Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #3 prohibits strip retail developments. The regional commercial policies do not specifically encourage planned clusters of commercial development, however, Regional Commercial Policy #2 does encourage development with a single theme and with a central focus, which could include planned clusters, such as those illustrated by Development Scenario "A." 4. Commercial areas should be located and designed to minimize travel and congestion and to promote safety. Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #1 encourages regional commercial areas, to be located near easy freeway access and at the intersection of two arterials. Such locations minimize travel and, with proper mitigation, minimize congestion, and promote safety. 39 The Renton Center and the Longacres Area Locations are both situated outside the travel time center of the market area and characterized by access and circulation problems (see Transportation section following). 5. Sufficient access, circulation, walkways, and off - street parking and loading should be provided by commercial developments. Comment: Regional Commercial Policies #5 and #6 encourage pedestrian - oriented amenities and common parking facilities, respectively. Adequate on -site parking and internal circulation could be provided to discourage on- street parking. Through the site plan review process (Regional Commercial Policy #8) the "safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation" would be reviewed, which would provide a means by which the sufficiency of access, circulation, walkways, and off - street parking and loading could be assured. The Longacres Area Location could accommodate ample off - street parking, loading, and amenities for a regional center. Depending upon the redevelopment plan and the ability to obtain adjacent property, the Renton Center site may require use of parking structures to accommodate parking and multiple -story buildings for the building floor area for a regional retail center. 6. To minimize traffic congestion, commercial areas should not be located near facilities that require a high degree of safety and traffic control. Comment: Neither the Longacres nor the Renton Center locations would be located near facilities that require a high degree of safety and traffic control. See also the description of Transportation impacts in the DEIS as well as the following chapter of the SDEIS. 7. Commercial areas should be compatible with adjacent land uses. Comment: As described in the Land Use chapter above, existing land uses in the general Longacres Area Location consist of open space, vacant land, industrial and commercial uses. A small residential area north of the racetrack is part of the Longacres complex. An office park is located northwest and vacant land is located immediately east, south, and west of the site. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the Longacres site as commercial bordered by greenbelt on three sides and commercial use and I -405 on the north. This designation was intended to recog- nize the existing Longacres complex. A regional retail center would be mostly compatible with these adjacent and planned land uses. 40 As described in the Land Use chapter above, existing land uses in the general Renton Center area location include commercial, resi- dential, industrial, and open space. There are residential uses' to the west of Maple Avenue S.W., beyond the adjacent vacant land. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the land to the west and northwest as medium density residential to serve as a buffer between single family and commercial uses, and the land to the northeast, east, and south is designated as commercial, except for two public facilities and a residential area designated as high density residential. A regional retail center would be mostly compatible with these adjacent and planned uses. 8. Buffers should be placed between commercial and single - family uses with higher density single- family as an alternative to multiple- family uses where either the scale of the commercial development or the geographic constraints in the vicinity of the commercial area represent opportunities to locate less intensive residential uses adjacent to the commercial areas. Comment: The only residential land uses near the Longacres Area Location are north of the racetrack and are part of the Longacres complex. This use probably would be removed with the development of a regional retail center. To the west of the Renton Center site (west of Maple Avenue S.W.) medium density residential use buffers single - family areas farther to the west. There is also a high density residential area east of the commercial uses that are located on the east side of Rainier Avenue South. Multifamily uses in mixed use developments are allowed in the B -1 zone, however, the Regional Commercial Policies proposed in this action do not address residential uses. The mitigation of impacts on internal or residential uses could be considered with the application of site plan review required by Regional Commercial Policy #8 and the "Ample landscaping" requirements of Regional Commercial Policy #7. 9. A variety of goods and services should be available in each commmercial area. Comment: The goods and services currently available at Longacres are related to racetrack activities and, in terms of the total possible array of commercial uses, are limited. The Renton Center has a variety of retail and service commercial uses, including junior department stores, food, apparel, and personal services consistent with those usually included in a "community center." Regional Commercial Policy #4 would encourage uses that serve a broader regional market for either site, if selected. 41 10. Various uses within a commercial area should be compatible with each other. Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #2 encourages development of a central focus and single theme. Some existing uses in the existing Renton Center are not compatible with the regional commercial objective. The redevelopment of the Renton Center into a regional retail center, would necessitate compliance with proposed Regional Com- mercial Policies #2, 4, and 8, which would examine the compati- bility of existing (if any were to remain) and proposed uses. 11. Joint parking facilities should be encouraged. Comment: Proposed Regional Commercial Policy #6 encourages common parking facilities, which are necessary in a shopping center with a single focus, such as a mall. 12. Individual stores in an area should follow a common design and landscape theme. Comment: A regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would not need to relate to the existing uses or design, which would be removed, and, therefore, would be able to establish its own design and landscape theme. Renton Center does not have a unified design theme, although some individual buildings do have common design elements. A plan to establish a regional retail center at the Renton Center location would follow a common design and landscape theme or redesign the existing facilities to fit a new theme. 13. Adequate access for emergency and service equipment should be required. Comment: Both Longacres and Renton Center have adequate access for emergency and service equipment. A new regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location should offer sufficient space and access points to provide adequate emergency and service equipment access. Providing emergency and service equipment access for a regional retail center at Renton Center may have some design constraints because of congestion on surrounding streets and the transmission line that runs through the site. Access adequacy could be reviewed under Regional Commercial Policy #8, which provides for site plan review. 42 B. Commercial Structure and Sites Objective: Commercial structures and sites should be well- designed, constructed, and maintained. Comment: The design of any regional retail center would need to comply with site plan review (Regional Commercial Policy #8) and, thereby, would comply with the objective of achieving well- designed and well- constructed structures. This policy would not address main- tenance, however, Regional Commercial Policy #10, which encourages a contract rezone, could serve as a means by which all provisions of the objective could be achieved. C. Neighborhood Commercial Areas Objective: Neighborhood commercial areas should include only those convenience -type uses which serve the immediate neighborhood. Comment: A regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would not impact neighborhood commercial sites in Renton. A regional retail center located at the Renton Center area location would upgrade an existing community center, which includes some neighborhood commercial type uses, such as beauty shops, cleaners, and grocery or fresh food stores. These neighborhood commercial uses probably would be displaced if the Renton Center is converted to a regional retail center. D. Community Commercial Areas Objective: Community commercial areas should provide a broader variety of uses than neighborhood commercial areas, and be conveniently located to serve several neighborhoods. Comment: A regional retail center offers comparison goods that typically are not available at community retail centers. The development of a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would not significantly impact community centers in the City. The upgrading of Renton Center from a community to a regional retail center would add new uses but probably would displace some of the existing neighborhood center type uses in the center. At least one major full -line department store would be necessary to provide the regional attraction for the larger market area. This department store could displace existing tenants. The increased level of activity and higher rents also may displace some of the retail and service uses, such as dry cleaners and some of the fresh foods and grocery businesses that serve a smaller market area. New retail and service would be added. A new neighborhood or community center may be needed to provide for the grocery and service commercial uses displaced by the regional retail center. This in turn could intensify commercial land use in other areas of central Renton. 43 E. Downtown Business District Objective: The downtown business district should be preserved and enhanced to provide the broadest of personal services and retail sales opportunities. Comment: The policies of the Downtown Business District Objective focus on enhancement of the downtown area and do not attempt to preclude regional retail development elsewhere in the City. The proposed regional retail policies encourage destination -type, comparison retail use. According to Conger and Clarke, "The majority of downtown Renton is devoted to non - comparison goods establish- ments.... Of the comparison goods establishments in Downtown Renton, most are small specialty shops like jewelry stores, flower shops, sporting goods stores and similar businesses. Additional- ly, there are a few furniture stores and a limited number of clothing stores. K -Mart is also included. The total inventory of comparison goods retail space in Downtown Renton is estimated at 130,000 square feet including K -Mart at 60,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet of apparel stores, 30,000 square feet of furniture stores and 30,000 square feet of specialty shop space. At the present time, there are no general merchandise stores in Downtown Renton." (Conger and Clarke, 1988b.) The development of a regional retail center that serves the South End Market Area would result in a redistribution of the sales of comparison goods that currently are being purchased by the South End market population in downtown Renton as well as other retail centers. In order to assess the potential for a redistribution in comparison goods sales to affect downtown and Renton and other centers a market analysis was performed. The market analysis concluded that the development of a regional retail center at the Orillia Center site would reduce sales of comparison goods in downtown Renton by 12.8% in 1990, by 17.6% in 1995, and by 5.9% in 2000 (Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b). The development of a regional retail center at the Renton Center site would reduce sales of comparison goods in downtown Renton by 9.2% in 1990, by 11.4% in 1995, and by 0.2% in 2000 (Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b). The development of a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would reduce sales of comparison goods in downtown Renton by 10.3% in 1990, by 11.9% in 1995, and by 0.7% in 2000 (Conger and Clarke, 1988b). It should be noted that these reductions in sales of comparison goods reflect the redistribution of sales of general merchandise, apparel, furniture and specialty goods only. Other retail sales and services in downtown Renton would be negligibly affected by the reduction of sales of comparison goods. Because of the location, access problems and poor visibility of the Renton Center, its ability to capture the comparison goods segment of a regional market and to remain a viable center is questionable. If the redevelopment were successful and no other, 44 more competitive regional retail center were to capture the South End market, it is probable that the Renton Center Area Location could be attractive as a location for those uses that seek sites near but not in regional centers. The additional activity created by a successful regional retail center could, over time, attract small, specialty businesses to occupy some of the older, smaller store fronts in downtown. VI. Industrial Goal: To promote the development, maintenance or rehabilitation of industrial facilities. Comment: A regional retail commercial center at the Longacres Area Location could adversely affect nearby industrial areas by increasing land values above an industrial price level. The Renton Center Alternative would be expected to have minimial, if any, affect on industrial land uses in the City. . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - AREA SPECIFIC POLICIES /GREEN RIVER VALLEY POLICY PLAN (PAGES 31 -50 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) The following discussion focuses on the Longacres Regional Retail Center Alternative, which is located in the Green River Valley Plan Area. B. GOALS General Area Goal: The Valley Planning Area should be developed with a diversity of high quality industrial, commercial, and office uses. The Valley should be the principal growth area for these uses within the City of Renton. Development within the Valley should be compatible with the availability of services and transportation and with the environmental objectives of the City of Renton. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial District Objective and regional commercial policies would encourage a broader range of retail commercial uses to develop, and thereby would contribute to a greater diversity of industrial, commercial and office uses in the Valley. However, the development of the regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would result in the removal of that facility, which is a unique commercial recreational resource of regional significance. It would reduce the diversity of high quality industrial, commercial, and office uses. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment identifies the Valley Planning Area as the location appropriate for the development of a regional commercial development: the Longacres Area Location is consistent with this provision. The Renton Center Area Location, however, is not consistent with the provision of the General Area Goal that indicates that the Valley should be the location for growth of high quality commercial, office and industrial uses in the City of Renton. 45 As discussed in the DEIS, the Longacres Alternative Amendment is inconsistent with the intent to encourage "service commercial" uses in the Valley Planning Area. The proposed development would place approximately 50 acres in intensive retail commercial development and would not serve to encourage "service commercial" uses in the area. Regional Commercial Policy #8 states that site plan review would be required of any proposed regional commercial development. The site plan review would include an examination of criteria relating to the "availability of public services and facilities to accom- modate the proposed use," the "safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation," and "conformance with the Comprehen- sive Plan, its elements and policies." This would include con- formance with Transportation Policy VIIB6, which requires that property development should provide for public street improvements necessary to serve the site. Consequently, the review of any site plan with respect to these criteria would assess (or a contract rezone under Regional Commercial Policy #10 could provide a mechanism to assess) the compatibility of a proposed regional retail center with the availability of services and the suf- ficiency of transportation facilities. See also the discussion of transportation, services and utilities in Chapters III C, D and F, of the DEIS and the following subsections. Similarly, as described in the comment with respect to the City of Renton's Environmental Goal, above, Regional Commercial Policies #3, 7, and 8 would ensure that the environmental objectives of the City would be evaluated during the consideration of regional commercial development proposals. Land Use Goal: To promote development of the Valley in a diversity of high quality industrial uses, together with commercial and office uses. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment on one hand would promote diversity of land uses in the Valley Planning Area by providing the policy base that would allow the development of regional retail commercial uses. However, the development of the regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would result in the removal of that facility, which is a unique commercial recrea- tional resource of regional significance. Its removal would reduce the diversity of high quality industrial, commercial, and office uses. Economic Goal: To promote land development and commerce that will enhance a stable, diversified economic base for residents, employees, and businesses in the City of Renton. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment would promote land development that would produce a stable, diversified economic base. A regional retail center would create 2,200 jobs and in 1995 46 generate an estimated $3,041,500 in comparison goods retail sales tax revenue. However, if the development occurs at the Longacres Area Location, there would be a loss of the equivalent of 190 employees and $147,000 in business license and admissions tax revenue (not including the loss of sales tax revenue). Elimina- tion of the Longacres Race Track would reduce the diversification of the local economic base and eliminate a unique commercial recreation facility from the community. Environmental Goal: To ensure that development of the Valley is harmonious with the natural environmental setting, while minimizing pollution and other adverse environmental impacts. Comment: Regional Commercial Policies #3, 7, and 8 would ensure that the environmental objectives of the City would be evaluated during the consideration of regional retail center development proposals. The Longacres site has large areas of open space and some poten- tial wetland plant communities. Retention of open space and po- tential wetland locations could be considered and reviewed con- sistent with Policies 7, 8, and 10. The open space and wetlands issues would be constraints on the development of the site. Please refer to the discussion of these policies with respect to the General City of Renton Environmental Goal, above. Urban Design Goal: To promote a functional and aesthetic balance among industrial, commercial, office, recreational and other uses in the Valley through appropriate design standards and a logical land use pattern. Comment: The proposed policies encourage development of an aesthetic retail commercial development that would contribute to the provision of a functional balance of goods and services available to a broader regional market and the employment community in the Valley. Implementation of a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would result in the removal of that facility, which is a unique commercial recreation resource of regional significance. This, in turn, would reduce the diversity of high quality uses in the Valley. Regional Commercial Policy #8 requires site plan review in order to ensure that regional commercial development is appropriate, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, and compatible with land uses near to the regional retail use. The criteria for site plan review are cited in Section II above. Transportation Goal: To promote efficient transportation within the Valley and adequate access to and from the Valley Planning Area. 47 Urban Services Goal: To promote the adequate provision of utility services (including storm drainage control), community facilities, and recreational opportunities in the Valley. Comment: As stated above in the comment under the General Area Goal, it is expected that the site plan review process would ensure that a proposed regional retail center development would be examined in light of its consistency with an efficient transportation system and the adequacy of urban services. Specifically, it is expected that through the site plan review process infrastructure improve- ments would be identified and required, as appropriate, to ensure an effective transportation system, and adequate utilities and services. The Transportation, Utilities, and Services chapters address the mitigation measures that have been identified for development alternatives. Economic Policy #3: A diversity of industrial, commercial and office uses should be encouraged to provide stability to the economy of the Valley and to municipal revenues, and to provide a wide range of employment opportunities. Comment: As described, above, in the comment to the Valley Economic Goal, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would promote a diversity of retail uses in the Valley, however, it would elimi- nate the contribution of Longacres to the economy, to municipal revenues and employment opportunities in the Valley. The develop- ment of the Longacres Area Regional Retail Center Alternative ' could reduce stability to the economy and reduce net revenues that would accrue to the City if a different location were selected and the Longacres operation were to remain. If the Longacres operation were eliminated, the City of Renton would not receive $147,000 in business license fees and admissions taxes (Clements, 1988b). In addition, the City would not receive an undisclosed amount of sales tax revenue generated by the commercial operations at Longacres. It should be noted that although this economic policy encourages a diversity of retail uses, the diversity of commercial uses is constrained by the City Council's encouragement of "service commercial" as the primary commercial use in the valley. Economics Policy #4: Activities with a favorable ratio of municipal revenues to costs should be encouraged. Comment: As calculated in Appendix G and presented in Chapter III.H. of the DEIS, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would allow for the development of regional commercial uses encourages development with a positive municipal revenues to costs ratio. 48 The elimination of the Longacres Racetrack would result in the loss of municipal• revenues, as described under the comment to the previous policy. In addition, because of comparatively lesser sales, the Longacres Area Location Alternative would have a less favorable net revenues /cost ratio compared to the Orillia Center Alternative. Urban Design Policy # 1: Development standards that ensure high quality development and encourage compatibility of adjacent uses should be established for industrial, commercial and office uses. Urban Design Policy # 5: Incompatible industrial and commercial uses should be discouraged. Urban Design Policy #7: Land uses in the Valley should be located so as to provide a harmonious mix. Urban Design Policy #14: The design, placement and size of signs should be compatible with high quality development. Additional advertising billboards shall be prohibited in the Valley. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #8, which would require site plan review for regional commercial development, provides a partial means by which the above urban design policies relating to design could be achieved. Urban Design Policy #4: Site plan review should be required in the Valley. Comment: Site plan review is required under the proposed regional commercial policies. Urban Design Policy #8: Design standards or restrictive covenants executed between property owners and subsequent tenants or purchasers should be encouraged. Comment: This urban design policy is repeated as one of the proposed regional commercial policies. Urban Design Policy #10: Ample landscaping should be provided throughout a developed site, including along property lines, to provide a pleasant environment, minimize the impact of development, and enhance the visual experience from adjacent properties, including hillsides. 49 Comment: This urban design policy is repeated (with the exception that the words "including hillsides" are not included) as one of the proposed regional commercial policies. Storm Drainage /Flood Control Policy #7: New development throughout the Valley should provide on -site and lateral storm drainage as part of the overall storm drainage plan for the Valley. Storm Drainage /Flood Control Policy #8: Development regulations and flood control solutions should involve properties throughout the Black River /Springbrook Creek basin -- including upland areas. Storm Drainage /Flood Control Policy #11: The Flood Hazard Ordinance should be administered on the basis of requiring compensating storage -- either on -site or within the P -1 Channel alignment -- for new development or landfill below the base flood elevations of the revised Flood Hazard maps. Comment: The Longacres site currently has a stormwater pump station that releases into Springbrook Creek, which flows east of the site. The proposed P -1 channel would border the site to the east. In addition, the City of Tukwila plans a 42 -inch stormwater main on the north side of the site along S.W. 16th Street. This main will convey stormwater to the proposed P -1 channel at a box culvert to be located at the northeast corner of the site. Stormwater could continue to exit the Longacres site using the existing drainage system (City of Tukwila, 1988). The Longacres site is located in the floodplain of the Green River. Any development that occurs in this area must be protected from floodwaters. Any fill that is placed onto the site in order to achieve sufficient site elevation to provide flood protection for a regional retail center would need to provide compensating flood storage. The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #8, which would require site plan review for regional commercial develop- ment, provides a partial means by which the above storm drainage /flood control policies could be addressed when consider- ing applications for regional commercial developments. Transportation Policy #3: The interchange of SR -167 at S.W. 43rd Street should be improved to accommodate more efficient access to the Valley Planning Area. Transportation Policy #11: The City should work with Kent, Tukwila and King County to reduce the impacts of through traffic on S.W. 43rd Street and to provide additional east -west routes through the Valley. Transportation Policy #14: The number of access points on individual sites should be minimized. 50 Transportation Policy 115: Along arterial routes, direct access to individual sites should occur only when alternate access via secondary streets is unavoidable. Transportation Policy #20: New development should help finance off - street and traffic control improvements in proportion to the additional traffic impacts created. Comment: As described in the Transportation chapter of the DEIS and SDEIS, the development of a regional retail center would increase traffic volumes on the roads, intersections and interchanges in the area of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Preliminary roadway improvement needs for the conceptual development alternatives are identified. Any development- induced roadway improvement needs would be mitigated and identified through the site plan review process. Transportation Policy 117: All parking, servicing, loading and unloading of vehicles should be only on -site. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #6 states that common parking facilities should be constructed. This policy and other development standards with respect to servicing, loading, and unloading of vehicles would be addressed through the site plan review process, which would examine the specific proposal's compliance with applicable plans, policies and standards. Transportation Policy #18: A system of bicycle /pedestrian trails separate from the street system and a system of marked bicycle routes should be established. Transportation Policy #19: Provision for pedestrians should be provided throughout the system of streets in the Valley. Recreation Policy #6: A system of bicycle /pedestrian trails separate from the street system and a system of marked bicycle routes should be incorporated in the development plan for the Valley and should connect with.other trails or recreation destinations. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #5 states that pedestrian oriented amenities should be encouraged. The site plan review process would examine the proposed pedestrian and bicycle ameni- ties incorporated into a proposed regional retail center develop- ment to ensure that the on -site trails are integrated into area trail system networks, as appropriate. Any development plan for the Longacres Area Location would also have to recognize the greenbelt areas bordering the site on the east, west and south. 51 Utilities Policy #1: Development within the Valley should be served by adequate utilities. Comment: As described in the Utilities Chapter of the DEIS and below, the capacity of existing utilities in the Valley is sufficient to accomodate the anticipated needs of new development, including development that would be allowed through the proposed Comprehen- sive Plan Amendment. Water and sewer services are available on three sides of the Longacres site. Storm drainage facilities are also available as discussed above under storm drainage and flood control policies. Both natural gas and electric power are available to serve the site. Utilities Policy #2: New development should provide for utility extensions to service itself. Utilities Policy #3: All utilities should be placed underground. Utilities Policy #4: Sites and buildings should be designed to maximize energy conservation. Community Facilities #1: The City should closely monitor fire protection needs in the Valley and provide for a new fire station when appropriate. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #8 states that site plan review would be required of new regional commercial development. A specific criterion of the site plan review process is that proposed projects would be evaluated with respect to the "availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use." Through this review the above utilities policies would be considered. All necessary public utilities are available at the Longacres site. Recreation Policy #1: Provision of recreational opportunities should be an integral part of development in the Valley. Recreation Policy #2: Recreational opportunities in the Valley that serve both employees and the community should be encouraged. Comment: The development of a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would eliminate the Longacres race track, a commercial recreation facility of regional significance. If this recreation facility is re- established, it would probably not relocate in the City, but would seek a large, undeveloped, level site outside the City because of lower land costs. Loss of this recreation facility is inconsistent with Valley Plan Recreation Policy #1. 52 It is possible, however, that a smaller, different kind of public park or commercial recreation facility could be developed on that part of the Longacres site not needed for the regional retail center; such a development would be consistent with the Valley Plan Recreation Policy #2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - AREA SPECIFIC POLICIES /CENTRAL RENTON POLICY PLAN (PAGES 61 -67 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) This section evaluates the consistency of the Renton Center Regional Retail Commercial Center Alternative with the policies of the Central Renton' subarea. B. GENERAL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES LAND USE POLICIES Land Use Objective: The Land Use Element of the Central Area Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a general guide to land use decision- making. Policies (1) Land use decisions within the Central Area should be consistent with available transportation, community facilities and utilities. (2) The Land use Plan illustrates full development, however, not every parcel is appropriate for development at one time. (3) Office uses should be utilized as a transition between residential and commercial /industrial areas. Where opportunities for adequate -size land parcels are available, office uses should be an alternative to multiple family development. Comment: The Renton Center Alternative is consistent with the intent of the land use objective and guidance established by the policies. Commercial Development Objective: The Central Area Plan should provide for sufficient retail services to accommodate the projected residential and employment population of the area. Comment: A regional retail center located at the Renton Center Area Location would enhance the Central Area's ability to serve its 53 existing trade area by adding new regional retail businesses to the Central Area. Policies (1) The Central Business District (generally bounded by Main and Mill Avenue S. on the east, S. 4th on the south, Logan Avenue S. on the west and the Cedar River) is a community resource which should be preserved and enhanced. Comment: As described above under the comment on the Downtown Business District Objective, the market analysis concluded that the de- velopment of a regional retail center at the Orillia Center site would reduce sales of comparative goods in downtown Renton by 12.8% in 1990, by 17.6% in 1995, and by 5.9% in 2000 (Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b). By comparison, the development of a re- gional retail center at the Longacres site would reduce sales of comparative goods in downtown Renton by 10.3% in 1990, by 11.9% in 1995, and by 0.7% in 2000 (Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b). The development of a regional retail center at the Renton Center site would reduce sales of comparative goods in downtown Renton by 9.2% in 1990, by 11..4% in 1995, and by 0.2% in 2000 (Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b). Thus, the development of any regional retail center would not preserve and enhance the Central Business District. (2) The City should work actively with the property owners and merchants of the Central Business District to assess the needs of the CBD and to improve the area's visual and retail image. Comment: The proposed policies do not preclude the City working with the property owners and merchants of the CBD. (3) New retail commercial services should be encouraged to locate within established shopping districts and centers. Comment: A regional commercial center at the Renton Center Area Location would redevelop the existing 25.8 acre community retail center into a regional retail center and provide for the expansion of the existing center into 13 acres to the west of the existing center. (4) Strip commercial development should be allowed only where no other alternative design is possible. Comment: The Proposed Regional Retail Commercial Policy #3 prohibits strip development. 54 (7) Commercial development should be designed to limit the number of access points to arterial streets. Comment: The provision for site plan review would ensure that circulation and access points to arterial streets meets the City's requirements to limit access points. (8) Office and similar service and professional uses should be en- couraged for transitional areas between retail shopping areas and residential areas: a. Between S. 3rd Street and the railroad corridor, and b. Between Park and Factory Avenue North, north of Bronson Way. Comment: This area is east of the commercial development on the east side of Rainier Avenue South and would be impacted only by a general increase in commercial activity in the area. Community Facilities Objective Community facilities should be sufficient to accommodate the level of population anticipated in the Plan. Policies (1) To protect life and property in the southwestern portion of the Central Area, the feasibility of a fire station location in the Green River Valley Industrial Area should be determined. Comment: A new city fire station is proposed by the Fire Department's Master Plan to be located in the Valley Industrial Area. This station also would be better able to serve the area north of I -405' and west of Rainier Avenue South. According to representatives of the Fire Department, no new equipment would be required to serve a regional retail center (Adamson, 1988). Transportation Policies (1) The Central Area Comprehensive Plan strongly endorses the need for a city -wide traffic study to thoroughly evaluate all of the transportation requirements to accommodate the proposed level of development in the Central Area. (2) Alternatives to the S. 2nd /S. 3rd Street one -way system should be evaluated. Arterial street corridors should be designed and 55 utilized for transportation activities consistent with the adjoining land use. Comment: Implementation of the regional retail center policies and rede- velopment of the Renton Center would not preclude the study of transportation requirements and alternatives in the Central Area. Proposed Regional Commercial Policy #8 requires site plan review, which in part would examine transportation system requirements necessary to support a regional retail center. (3) To enhance the retail character of the Central Business District, every effort should be made to remove through- traffic from South 3rd Street. Comment: Based on the transportation analysis, development of a regional retail center would add 2,510 vehicle trips per day to.that portion of South Third Street between Rainier Avenue South and Shattuck Avenue; 5,657 vehicle trips per day to that portion of South Third Street between Shattuck Avenue and Whitworth Avenue South; 4,419 vehicle trips per day to that portion of South Third Street between Whitworth Avenue South and Wells Avenue South; and 3,503 vehicle trips per day to that portion of South Third Street between Wells Avenue South and Houser Way North. (4) Wherever possible through- traffic should be routed around resi- dential areas, particularly low density residential neighborhoods. (5) Efforts should be made to mitigate the impacts of existing and future traffic that must pass through residential areas. Comment: The transportation analysis indicates that there would be regional retail center traffic that would pass through low - density resi- dential areas. The transportation analysis projects 1,017 vehicle trips per day on Garden Avenue North between South Second Street and North Third Street, a portion of which is designated Low Density Multifamily in the Comprehensive Plan. The transportation analysis also indicates the addition of 1,059 trips per day on Langston Road and 594 trips per day on Renton Avenue, both of which pass through low density residential neighborhoods. Through the site plan review process it may be possible to develop a miti- gation plan that would eliminate or reduce the adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods of regional retail center traffic destined for a redeveloped Renton Center. (6) Park -and -ride and park- and -pool facilities should be provided at strategic locations. 56 (7) New development should be encouraged to increase mass transit usage through location and design. Comment: The site plan review process is a means by which mass transit and other efficient modes of transportation may be encouraged with respect to traffic destined for a regional retail center at the redeveloped Renton Center location. (8) Airport Way /Logan Avenue, Rainier Avenue, and Main Avenue S. /Grady Way should be encouraged as through- arterial traffic routes. (9) Logan Avenue S. from S. 3rd to S. 7th should be de- emphasized as a future through- arterial route due to the residential character of this area. (10) South 7th Street west of Burnett Avenue S. should be improved to arterial standards to divert anticipated traffic growth away from South Renton residential areas. Comment: In order to accommodate through traffic associated with a regional retail center at the Renton Center site, it would be necessary to evaluate the impacts of generated trips on the capacity of the arterial system. The transportation analysis indicates that Airport Way /Logan Avenue, Rainier Avenue, Main Avenue South /Grady Way, and South Seventh Street would receive vehicles associated with the regional retail center at the Renton Center site. Utilities Objective To accommodate the proposed level of growth safe and healthful public utilities should be provided. Policies (1) Zoning recommendations should be consistent with available utilities or their extension. (3) Utility up- grading should be consistent with the intended use. Comment: The site plan review and approval process provides for review of the adequacy of utilities prior to development. (5) Multiple uses of utility corridors should be encouraged. Comment: An overhead high voltage transmission line currently passes through the existing Renton Center site in a north -south direc- 57 tion. Multiple uses of this utility corridor could be examined, as appropriate, through the redevelopment planning and site plan review processes. (9) Adequate storm drainage should be provided in all areas. The requirement of site plan review would ensure that utilities are adequate to accommodate the projected demand. TRANSPORTATION This section is summarized from a transportation study prepared by William E. Popp Associates. This study is available for review at the City of Renton. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Street System The Longacres Area Location is situated in the City of Renton south of I -405 and east of the West Valley Highway (SR -181). The area is currently accessed from the West Valley Highway and 158th Street from the west and S.W. 16th Street and Longacres Drive from the east. The arterial streets in the study area for this alternative are: East Valley Road: is a collector arterial that parallels SR -167 and extends south from S.W. 16th Street through the Valley and into Kent, Auburn, Algona, Pacific, and Sumner. East Valley Road connects with SR -167 and with southbound on and off ramps at S.W. 41st Street and with northbound on and off ramps at S.W. 43rd Street. S.W. Grady Way: is a principal arterial that parallels I -405 north of the Interstate. S.W. Grady Way connects with SR -181 (West Valley Highway) at an intersection to the northwest of the site. Access to I -405 is at the same location. Interurban Avenue: is a collector arterial extending north from S.W. Grady Way, to the north of Longacres. It intersects with Southcenter Boulevard and S.W. Grady Way to the northwest of the site. Lind Avenue S.W.: is a four lane minor arterial, with turn lanes at major intersections, that parallels East Valley Road. Lind Avenue S.W. is approximately 3,000 feet to the east of Longacres and extends from S.W. Seventh Street on the north and to S.W. 43rd Street on the south. In the study area, the intersections with S.W. 39th Street, S.W. 41st Street and S.W. 43rd Street are signalized. Monster Road: is a collector arterial that extends from S.W. 16th Street north to 72nd Avenue South. Oakesdale Avenue S.W.: is a five -lane principal arterial that extends from S.W. 43rd Street north to S.W. 31st Street in the study area. To the north of the study area it also extends from S.W. 16th Street to the intersection with Monster Road at 72nd Avenue South. S.W. 27th Street: is a collector arterial that extends from Oakesdale Avenue S.W. east to East Valley Road. It is a three lane arterial between East Valley Road and Lind Avenue S.W. and Longacres. 59 S.W. 43rd Street: is a five -lane principal arterial. S.W. 43rd Street, although it changes alignment and name, serves as a major east -west corridor extending from SR -99 on the west to S.W. Petrovitsky Road on the east. S.W. 43rd Street is accessed from SR -167 northbound and provides access to and from SR -167 northbound via on and off ramps. SR- 515/108th Avenue S.E.: is a principal arterial that parallels East Valley Road to the east of the Valley. It is a five -lane arterial from S.W. Grady Way to Talbot Road and four -lane arterial south to 192nd Street. Traffic Volumes and Level -of- Service See Table 5 in the DEIS for a description of traffic conditions for various levels -of- service. It is estimated that the Longacres operations generate 8,650 average weekday trips (AWT). Table 3 presents existing traffic volumes and levels -of- service for the key roadway segments. Pedestrian Circulation Sidewalks exist along S.W. 43rd Street, East Valley Road and S.W. 39th Street. Sidewalks also are in place where property is currently developed along S.W. 41st Street and Lind Avenue S.W. Sidewalks do not exist in the immediate area of Longacres. A trail system is proposed to the west of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. between S.W. Grady Way and S.W. 43rd Street in the study area. Bicycle Facilities A description of the bicycle facilities in the Green River Valley area is found on page 78 of the DEIS. Railroad Facilities Railroad facilities in the Longacres area include a Burlington Northern line and a Northern Pacific line directly to the west of Longacres. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Street System The existing Renton Shopping Center is bounded on the east by Rainier Avenue South, on the south by the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, on the west by Hardie Avenue S.W., and on the north by Empire Way (SR -900). Primary access to the site is from Rainier Avenue South and Empire Way. The arterial streets in the study area for this alternative are: Rainier Avenue South: is a six lane principal arterial. It connects Seattle on the north to Renton, and the Green River Valley to the south via SR -167, the Valley Freeway. At SR -167 it continues through the Green River Valley through Kent, Auburn, Pacific, Algona, and Sumner to Puyallup. It is a critical link for the north -south movement between Renton and south King County /northern Pierce County. 60 Table 3 YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH AND WITHOUT A REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER AT THE LONGACRES AREA LOCATION SITE (1) Road Segments East Valley Road Oakesdale - 200th S.W. Grady Way Monster - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind Lind - Rainier Rainier - Burnett Interurban Avenue ' I -405 - Southcenter 81 Lind Avenue S.W. 27th - 34th 34th - 43rd Monster Road Grady - 72nd With 1.0 MSF Without Regional Retail Center Retail Ctr (2) VTIP LOS Transpo LOS Total LOS Volume (3) Volume (4) Volume (5) 25,640 D 23,545 D Oakesdale Avenue S.W. 34th - 43rd 21,070 C 43rd - East Valley S.W. 27th Street West Valley - Oakesdale 33,650 F Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 E Lind - East Valley 17,010 A S.W. 43rd Street Lind - East Valley 39,190 F East Valley - SR 167 54,820 F SR 167 - Talbot Talbot - SR 515 SR 515 - 116th SR 515 /108th Avenue S.E. Grady - Talbot 43rd - 192nd West Valley Highway I -405 - 158th 27th - 43rd 43rd - 188th 35,220 F 37,971 F 38,097 F 40,249 F 21,051 D 24,068 E 33,999 F 36,471 F 32,852 F 34,760 F 36,960 F 39,343 F 30,878 F 28,299 E 432 A 1,550 A 22,556 C 19,133 C 21,884 D 39,040 F 40,496 F 23,861 C 43,886 F 59,380 F 62,450 F 71,636 F 54,095 F 63,385 F 51,261 F 57,885 F 29,457 F 30,964 F 32,852 F 35,518 F 29,077 E 35,000 F 19,051 C 21,704 D 20,900 C 21,714 C (1) Road segments with 5% or greater differential impact (2) VTIP volumes are base for forecast; however, where VTIP volumes are not available, Transpo volumes are used (3) LOS - level of service with VTIP recommended number of lanes (4) LOS - level of service with existing lanes on all segments except Oakesdale Avenue between S.W. 43rd and East Valley Road where four lanes are assumed (5) LOS - based on assumptions in (3) and (4) Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. 61 Bronson Way North: is a five lane collector arterial connecting South Second Street on the west with Sunset Boulevard on the east. Burnett Avenue South: is a minor arterial between South Seventh Street and S.W. Grady Way in the study area. Burnett Avenue South generally runs north and south to the east of Rainier Avenue South. Empire Way South: is a principal arterial extending from Seattle to the northwest to Rainier Avenue South. It has six lanes in the study area between Hardie Avenue S.W. and Rainier Avenue South. Garden Avenue North: is a minor arterial which extends from Bronson Way North to North Third in the study area. Shattuck Avenue: is a collector arterial in the study area. It extends from S.W. Grady Way north to Bronson Way North in the study area. South Second Street: is a four -lane collector arterial in the study area. It is a four -lane arterial extending from Rainier Avenue South on the west to the intersection with Bronson Way North. Hardie Avenue S.W.: is an arterial on the west side of the subject site. Within the study area it extends north from South Seventh Street to South Third Street. Houser Way South: is an arterial to the east of the subject site. Within the study area it extends east from Main Avenue to Bronson Way North. Langston Road: is a collector to the north of and generally parallel with Empire Way South. In the study area it extends east from Shattuck Avenue to Main Avenue. South Seventh Street: is a collector arterial to the east and south of the subject site. In the study area it extends from Rainier Avenue South east to Burnett Avenue South. Traffic Volume and Level -of- Service Impacts Table 4 presents projected traffic volumes and levels -of- service associated with the road segments that were studied with respect to the existing Renton Center Area Location. Pedestrian Circulation All arterials in the study area have sidewalks. Adequate sidewalks and pedestrian ways currently exist. Bicycle Facilities There are no exclusive bikeways designated near the subject site. 62 Table 4 YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS -OF- SERVICE WITH AND WITHOUT A REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER AT THE RENTON CENTER AREA LOCATION (1) Year 2000 wiExisting 297.000 SF Retail Center Volume/2110S (31 Road Segments Bronson Way Sunset - Houser Houser - Meadow Meadow - Garden Garden - Park Park - Main Burnett Avenue South Seventh Street - Grady Way Empire Way 81st Avenue South - Thomas Hardie - Rainier Garden Avenue Bronson Way • North Thins North Third Street - North Fourth Street North Fourth Street - North Sixth Street North Eighth Street - Lake Washington Blvd. 30,016 F 13,667 A 11,999 'A 16,539 A 19,932 B Year 2000 w /1.0 Million SF Retail Center Volume/21 LOS (31 33,081 F 15,136 A 13,468 A 18,646 B 22,363 C 14,632 A 16,114 B 23,168 E 24,338 E 34,334 E 37,193 E 4.540 A 3,600 A 6,549 A 4,786 A 5,179 A 3,782 A 6,964 A 5,033 A Hardie Avenue Southwest South Seventh Street - Renton Center Access 10,468 A 11,632 8 Houser Way Main Avenue - Mill Avenue Mill Avenue - Bronson Way Langston Road South 132nd Street - Thomas Avenue Thomas Avenue - Empire Way North Sixth Street Williams Avenue - Wells Avenue Wells Avenue - Park Avenue Park Avenue Bronson Way - North Third Street Rainier Avenue 1.405 North Ramps - Grady Way Grady Way - Hardie Avenue Hardie Avenue - Seventh Street South Seventh Street - South Fourth Place South Fourth Place - Renton Center Main Access Renton Center Main Access - South Third Place South Third Place - South Third Street South Third Street - South Second Street South Second Street - Airport Way Shattuck Avenue Grady Way - South Seventh Street South Seventh Street - South Sixth Street South Sixth Street - South Fourth Place South Fourth Place - South Third Place South Third Place - South Third Street South Second Street Rainier - Whitworth Whitworth - Morris Morris - Logan Logan - Burnett Burnett - Williams Williams - Wells Wells • Main 63 19,547 F 21,724 F 17,383 F 19,225 F 10,112 C 10,751 C 10,165 C 10,830 C 16,241 B 17,179 B 18.016 B 19,038 B 3,511 A 3,834 A 53,065 F 39,563 F 28,275 F 41,850 F 56,157 F 43,910 F 32,498 F 47,513 F 35.680 F 44.293 F 34,316 F 32,815 F 31,134 F 25.768 D 14,711 F 4,882 A 10,015 C 6,087 A 3.576 A 9,107 A 10,704 A 10,889 A 10,996 A 13,618 A 14,418 A 12,282 A 41,348 F 36,431 F 35,273 F 27,933 E 16,127 F 6,410 A 12,959 E 8,246 A 5,547 A 11,083 A 12.326 A 12,511 A 12,577 A 15,199 8 16,516 B 14,378 A Road Segments Table 4 (Continued) YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS -OF- SERVICE WITH AND WITHOUT A REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER AT THE RENTON CENTER AREA LOCATION (1) South Third Place Rainier - Shattuck South Third Street Rainier - Shattuck Shattuck - Whitworth Whitworth - Moms Moms - Bumett Bumett - Williams Williams - Wells Wells - Main South Fourth Place Rainier - Shattuck South Fourth Street Shattuck - Whitworth Whitworth - Moms Moms - Bumett Bumett - Williams Wells - Main South Seventh Street Lind - Hardie Rainier - Shattuck Shattuck - Moms Moms - Bumett Sunset Boulevard North Fourth Street - 1-405 Northbound Ramp Wells Avenue South Third Street - South Second Street South Second Street - North Third Street North Third Street - North Fourth Street Whitworth Avenue South Fourth Street - South Third Street Williams Avenue South Fourth Street - South Third Street South Third Street - South Second Street (1) Road Segments with 5% or greater differential impact. (2) Volume based on Transpo year 2000 model loadings with adjustments tor retail center assumptions. (3) LOS - level -of- service assuming existing number of lanes. Year 2000 wiExisting 297,000 SF Retail Center Volumef2l LOS 131 5,890 A 13,125 E 16,704 F 18,255 F 14,860 F 15,950 F 14,262 E 17,254 F 17,751 F 14,349 A 10,961 A 14,541 A 16,683 B 200 A 18,505 C 14,202 F 10,769 C 12,915 E 29,954 F 11,922 D 9,785 C 6,268 A 6,489 A 14,994 F 13,306 E Year 2000 w /1.0 Million SF Retail Center Volume(21 LOS 13) 10,059 A 14,701 F 20,257 F 21,030 F 17,635 F 18,725 F 17,037 F 19,454 F 20,700 F 16,549 B 12,741 A 16,321 B 18,463 C 224 A 19,576 C 15,393 F 12,254 D 14,400 F 31,607 F 12,539 E 10,400 C 6,616 A 6,912 A 16,384 F 14,696 F Railroad Facilities Burlington Northern railroad tracks are located across the south end of the subject site. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Vehicle Trip Generation A regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would generate a net increase of 28,450 average weekday trips. This figure reflects the replacement of 8,650 Longacres- operations with 37,100 AWT generated by the regional retail center. The distribution of these trips is presented in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 7. Differential Impacts Differential Impacts refers to the difference between the projected Year 2000 traffic if the subject area location was dedicated to its existing commercial recreation use, and the projected Year 2000 traffic if the subject area location were developed as a regional retail center. Twenty -four road segments would have a 5% or greater differential impact if one million square feet of retail center were developed at the Longacres Area Location (see Table 5). Level -of- Service Impacts Of the 24 road segments with 5% or greater differential impact, three are expected to decrease to LOS F if one million square feet of retail center is developed. These three road segments are 1) Lind Avenue S.W. from S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 34th Street, 2) S.W. 27th Street from Oakesdale Avenue S.W. to Lind Avenue S.W., and 3) West Valley Highway from I -405 to 158th Street (see Table 3). Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation would increase under this alternative. As development occurs sidewalks and signalization would be completed increasing pedestrian safety in the area. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle traffic in the study area could increase with an increase in development. Railroad Facilities The railroad tracks to the west of the site would be consolidated into one main track. 65 0 0 1267 03 d 432 A( GP0 4578 1-405 A v6, p'._� / , 0 0 48 v v 961 625 142 19TH ST rn 0) 0 0 0 0 0 W 14543 14349 a 7975 27TH ST 1004 0 0 M N 0 M OAKESDALE CI 244 0 r S}1 34TH ST 3119 0 SW 41ST ST Qf .J A LTI Source: Wm. Popp 1988 SW 43110 ST t0 N 0 0f N (.0 N co O 10483 N N CO 0 0 M 7475 TRIP ASSIGNMENT: 1.0 MILLION SF RETAIL CENTER AT LONGACRES RACETRACK SITE AWT VOLUMES Figure 7 Assignment of Year 2000 Traffic Associated with Development of A Regional Retail Center at the Longacres Area Location City of Renton SHAPIRO & ASS2IIATESY 66 Table 5 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT (%) ON AFFECTED ROAD SEGMENTS OF REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER OPERATIONS AT THE LONGACRES AREA LOCATION Road Segments East Valley Road S.W. 27th Street - S.W. 43rd Street S.W. 43rd Street - South 200th Street S.W. Grady Way Monster Road - Main Street Interurban Avenue South I -405 - Southcenter Boulevard Lind Avenue S.W. South Seventh Street - Grady Way Grady Way - S.W. 43rd Street Monster Road Grady Way - 72nd Avenue Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Grady Way - S.W. 43rd Street S.W. 43rd Street - East Valley Road Rainier Avenue South I -405 - South Seventh Street S.W. 27th Street /Strander Boulevard Andover Park West - West Valley Highway West Valley Highway - East Valley Road S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale Avenue - Lind Avenue S.W. 43rd Street /South 180th Street Andover Park West - West Valley Highway West Valley Highway - SR -167 SR -167 - 116th Avenue S.E. SR- 515/108th Avenue S.E. Grady Way - South 192nd Street West Valley Highway I -405 - South 188th Street Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. 67 Differential Impact 0.9% 3.3% 7.0% 6.4% 3.7% 8.4% 258.8% 1.8% 14.4% 1.2% 4.5% 33.4% 0% 2.1% 5.0% 14.9% 4.4% 8.8% Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Vehicle Trip Generation The redevelopment of the existing Renton Center and adjacent property to the west would establish a regional retail center that would generate a net of 23,300 average weekday trips. See Table 4 and Figure 8, which describe the projected distribution of these trips. Differential Impacts Differential Impacts refers to the difference between the projected Year 2000 traffic if the subject site remained as a community retail center and the projected Year 2000 traffic if the subject area were redeveloped into a regional retail center. Seventeen road segments would show enough differential impact to reduce the level -of- service (see Table 6). Level -of- Service Impacts A regional retail center at this location would result in a decrease in level -of- service on 17 road segments (see Table 4). (Sixty -six road segments have 5% or greater differential impact with the development of a regional retail center.) Four roadway segments are expected to decrease to LOS F with the addition of the project traffic. Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian usage would increase under this alternative. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle activity would increase in the study area. The Renton Master Trail Plan would be constructed as development of the one million square foot shopping center occurs. Railroad Facilities Railroad tracks border the southern end of the subject site. They would have no impact on the development of this alternative. MITIGATION MEASURES Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative The number of lanes needed to accommodate projected regional retail center - related traffic was calculated for each of the road segments based on the two -hour PM peak LOS E criterion adopted with the VTIP. The needed number of new lanes are shown on Table 7. In addition, major interchange improvements would be needed at SR -167 and S.W. 43rd Street. Also major improvements would be necessary in the S.W. 43rd Street corridor or parallel corridors to increase the LOS to E or better. 68 ;Ii)bAl Ave-, t0 r 1007 1627 176 580 tO p�2Po2T r In 2327 N ti 3146 2583 7 •rn 4553`° 22A9 430 0 CO 0 1 Source: Wm. Popp 1988 ti TRIP ASSIGNMENT: 1.0 MILLION SF RETAIL CENTER RENTON CENTER SITE ALTERNATIVE AWT VOLUMES Figure 8 Assignment of Year 2000 Traffic Associated with Development of A Regional Retail Center at the Renton Center Area Location City of Renton A SSC� IRIATES% 69 Table 6 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY ( %) ON AFFECTED ROAD SEGMENTS OF REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER OPERATIONS AT THE AREA LOCATION Road Segments Airport Way /Renton Avenue South Taylor Place - Rainier Avenue South Rainier Avenue South - Logan Avenue South Bronson Way Main Avenue - Sunset Boulevard N.E. Sunset Boulevard N.E. - S.E. Fifth Street Burnett Avenue South Seventh. Street - Grady Way Empire Way South 68th Avenue South -. Rainier Avenue Garden Avenue Bronson Way S. - Lake Washington Boulevard/ Park Avenue Grady Way Raymond Avenue - Rainier Avenue Rainier Avenue - Wells Avenue Hardie Avenue S.W. Rainier Avenue - Project Access Houser Way Main Avenue - Bronson Way Langston Road 76th Avenue South -• Empire Way South Lind Avenue S.W. 16th Street - S.W. Seventh Street Logan Avenue South Second Street - North Sixth Street Main Avenue Puget Drive - South Fourth Street Mill Avenue South Fourth Street /Houser Way - South Third Street /Bronson Way 70 Differential Impact 2.4% 4.5% 12.3% 1.7% 10.1% 5.7% 7.0% 1.5% 2.7% 6.2% 10.9% 5.4% 2.8% 3.5% 1.0% 0.2% Road Segments Table 6 (Continued) DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY ( %) ON AFFECTED ROAD SEGMENTS OF REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER OPERATIONS AT THE AREA LOCATION Differential Impact North Third Street Logan Avenue - Sunset Boulevard 2.0% North Fourth Street Logan Avenue - Sunset Boulevard 1.6% North Sixth Street Logan Avenue - Park Avenue 5.3% Park Avenue Bronson Way South - I -405 4.0% Rainier Avenue/ SR -167 S.W. 27th Street - I -405 1.7% I -405 - Renton Shopping Center Main Access 13.9% Renton Shopping Center Main Access - 87th Avenue South 11.2% Shattuck Avenue Grady Way - South Third Street 32.3% South Second Street Rainier Avenue - Main Avenue 13.7% South Third Place Rainier Avenue South - Shattuck Avenue 70.8% South Third Street Rainier Avenue - Main Avenue 16.7% South Fourth Place Rainier Avenue South - Shattuck Avenue 16.6% South Fourth Street Shattuck Avenue - Main Avenue 11.8% South Seventh Street Seneca Street - Hardie Avenue S.W. Hardie Avenue S.W. - Burnett Avenue 4.0% 9.0% SR- 515/108th Avenue S.E. Grady Way - Puget Drive 4.7% 71 I Table 6 (Continued) DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY ( %) ON AFFECTED ROAD SEGMENTS OF REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER OPERATIONS AT THE AREA LOCATION Differential Road Segments Impact Sunset Boulevard /SR -900 Bronson Way - N.E. Seventh Street Wells Avenue Grady Way - South Second Street South Second Street - North Sixth Street Whitworth Avenue South Second Street - South Fourth Street Williams Avenue Grady Way - South Second Street South Second Street - North Sixth Street Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. 72 4.7% 2.6% 4.8% 4.9% 6.8% 4.4% Road Segments Table 7 NEEDED NUMBER OF LANES ON AFFECTED ROAD SEGMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE PROJECTED YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH A REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER AT THE LONGACRES AREA LOCATION Existing VTIP Needed No. Lanes Lanes ( *) of Lanes East Valley Road Oakesdale Avenue - South 200th Street 2 - 5 Approximately 5.4 lane miles of new roads are needed to accommodate the development of one million square feet of shopping center at the Longacres Area Location. The project- related cost of constructing the needed lanes and other improvements cannot be estimated reliably without site- specific circulation and mitigation designs. The Renton Master Trail Plan, with boot /bike trails to the east of the subject site connecting to the King County Trail System, would be completed as development occurs. This development should mitigate the impact of increased non - vehicular traffic. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative The recommended number of lanes needed to accommodate projected regional center - related traffic was calculated for each of the road segments based on the two -hour PM peak LOS E data presented in the VTIP. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 8. Approximately 1.1 lane miles of new roads would be needed to accommodate the development of one million square feet of retail use at the Renton Center Area Location. The cost of constructing the needed lanes and other improvements may or may not be proportional to the other alternatives. For comparison purposes, the development of a one million square foot retail center on the Orillia Center site would require 7.7 lane miles of new roadway. 74 WITH Road Segments Bronson Way North Sunset - Houser Houser - Weadow Meadow - Garden Garden - Park Park - Main Burnett Avenue South South Seventh Street - Grady Empire Way South 81st Avenue - Thomas Hardie - Rainier Table 6 NEEDED NUMBER OF LANES ON AFFECTED ROAD SEGMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE PROJECTED YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED A REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER AT THE RENTON CENTER AREA LOCATION Garden Avenue North Bronson Way - North Third North Third - North Fourth North Fourth - North Sixth North Eighth - Lake Washington Hardie Avenue S.W. South Seventh Street - Renton Center Access Houser Way Main - Mill Mill - Bronson Langston Road South 132nd - Thomas Avenue Thomas - Empire Way Park Avenue North Bronson - North Third Street Rainier Avenue South 1 -405 North Ramp - Grady Grady - Hardie Hardie - Seventh Street South Fourth Place - Renton Center Main Access Renton Center Main Access South Third Place South Third Place - South Third Street South Third Street - South Second Street South Second Street - Airport South Third Street Rainier - Shattuck Shattuck - Whitworth Whitworth - Morris Morris - Burnett Burnett - Williams Williams - Wells Wells - Main Existing Needed Lanes Lanes Road Segments 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 6 2 2 3 Blvd. 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 6 7 Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. 7 7 7 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 Shattuck Avenue 6 Grady - South Seventh Street 5 South Seventh Street - 5 South Sixth Street 5 South Fourth Place - 5 South Third Place South Third Place - South Third Street 4 4 6 2 South Second Street Rainier - Whitworth Whitworth - Morris Morris - Logan Logan - Burnett Burnett - Williams Williams - Wells 2 Wells - Main 3 4 South Third Place Rainier - Shattuck South Fourth Place Rainier - Shattuck 2 South Fourth Street Shattuck - Whitworth Whitworth - Morris 4 Morris - Burnett 4 Burnett - Williams Wells - Main 2 South Seventh Street 2 Lind - Hardie Rainier - Shattuck Shattuck - Morris 2 Morris - Burnett 7 6 7 Sunset Boulevard N.E. North Fourth Street - 1 -405 Northbound Ramp Wells Avenue South 8 South Third Street - South Second Street 7 South Second Street - North Third Street 7 North Third Street - North Fourth Street 6 6 Williams Avenue South South Fourth Street - South Third Street South Third Street - South Second Street 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 Whitworth Avenue South South Fourth Street - South Third Street Existing Needed Lanes Lanes 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 SERVICES AND UTILITIES This section profiles existing characteristics and assesses the effects of the development of a regional retail center at Longacres or an expanded Renton Center on Fire Protection, Police Protection, and Recreation facilities. Due to the programmatic nature of the action, the potential impacts associated with the alternatives are evaluated by assuming that development on either the Longacres Regional Retail Center or Renton Center Area Regional Center site would be similar to the conceptual Development Scenario "A" of the Proposed Action as defined on page 14 -16 of the DEIS. FIRE PROTECTION Affected Environment As described on page 119 of the DEIS, the Renton Fire Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical aid services, and fire code enforcement and building plan review within the City of Renton. There are a minimum of two stations that respond to emergencies in the vicinity of each of the alternative sites: Station 11, located at 211 Mill Avenue; and Station 13, located at 17040 - 108th Avenue S.E. The Tukwila Fire Department can dispatch a single engine with three firefighters from their Station 51. Response time from Tukwila's Station 51 to the alternative sites is approximately three minutes (DEIS, page 119). Since issuance of the DEIS, Renton Fire Department representatives have modified the response time to the alternative sites from both Station 11 and Station 13 to approximately 6 -7 minutes, which accounts for the time required to dispatch and mount fire suppression equipment (Gordon, 1988). Representatives also have expressed a concern that this response time is not within the five minute response time level -of- service standard and underscores the need for an additional fire station to be located in the Green River Valley area (Gordon, 1988). A new station, Station 14, is proposed in the Valley Industrial Area, in the vicinity of S.W. 27th Street and Lind Avenue. According to the Fire Department's Master Plan, improving the response time in the Valley Industrial Area is "urgent," due to the increasing employment levels and the size and value of the new construction that has occurred in the area. This station also would be able to better serve.the office park area north of I -405 and west of Rainier Avenue South, Metro's Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Black River Business Park, and Container Corporation, all large facilities located in the area that currently receive "substandard fire protection services" (City of Renton, 1987). The Fire Department's Master Plan identifies fire flow problem areas in the City. Neither the Longacres Area Location nor the Renton Center Area Location, however, are identified as being located in a problem area (City of Renton, 1987). (Existing fire flow at hydrants located adjacent to each alternative site is discussed in the Water subsection of this Chapter.) 76 Significant Impacts Both of the alternative sites and a portion of the Orillia Comprehen- sive Plan Map Amendment Area are currently developed. Any future develop- ment of any of the sites, however, would increase the number of people and commercial structures on the site. The increased intensity of use, presence of large, valuable commercial structures, and increased density of people using either site would be expected to generate an increase in the number of calls, greater fire flow requirements, increased fire fighters and equip- ment, and increased demand for fire protection and emergency aid services. Department representatives indicate that equipment and personnel resources are adequate for a first alarm response, which requires two engines and one ladder truck. Second alarm response resources would require a second ladder truck which would be provided by a neighboring jurisdiction, as is currently the dispatching protocol. The project would not require additional equipment for the City (Adamson, 1988; Gordon, 1988). Depending on the severity of a fire at either location, response possibly may not be adequate. Development of a regional retail center would lead to increased traffic volumes and congestion in the site vicinity. Congestion can have a significant effect on emergency response times. In addition, construction activities can lead to increased fire potential and firefighting obstruc- tion. Increased demand also would be experienced by the Fire Prevention Bureau for fire inspection of new commercial buildings and issuance of additional annual commercial occupancy inspections. Representatives of the Fire Department indicate that the Bureau is currently understaffed; there- fore, any increased demand would adversely affect the work load of current inspectors (Gordon, 1988). Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Station 11 and 13 are approximately equidistant from this site. Access to the site from Station 13 would be via S.W. 43rd Street, SR -167 or Lind Avenue S.W., and I -405. Access from Station 11 would be via I -405. Because these all are freeways or major arterials, traffic congestion could result in delayed response time. Due to the current seasonal nature of activities at this site (during the racing season) and the type of structures, a change to regional commercial, year -round use would increase demand for and nature of fire protection services. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Station 11 is substantially closer to this site than Station 13. Access to the site from Station 11 would be via Sunset Boulevard West and South Third Street. Access to the site from Station 13 would be via SR -515, I -405 and SR -167. Because these all are freeways or major arterials, traffic congestion could result in delayed response time, however, due to the proximity of Station 11 to the site, congestion would not be as great a problem. 77 Because this site is currently used for commercial activity and developed in a cluster -type pattern, development as assumed would not be a substantial change in use. The demand for and nature of fire protection services required for the site, therefore, are not expected to change substantially (Gordon, 1988). Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area The impacts for this alternative are described on page 120 of the DEIS. Mitigating Measures See page 1.22, DEIS. POLICE PROTECTION Affected Environment As described on page 122 of the DEIS, police protection within the City of Renton is provided by the Renton Police Department. Additional service is provided by all adjacent jurisdictions on an as- needed basis through mutual aid agreements. Each of the alternative sites is within District "R -2" of the City, which includes portions of the downtown area and the Green River Valley. An average of five and one -half officers per 24 hour period is used for regular patrols of the R -2 district. Average response time within the R -2 district is approximately three minutes for emergency calls. Depending on the nature of the call and the intensity of traffic, this response time could be extended to as much as 10 minutes (Baker, 1988). Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative The Longacres Race Track employs one full -time, private security officer with offices at Longacres. During racing season, which lasts four to six months a year, Longacres contracts for one staff liaison from the Renton Police Department. The liaison assists with security services and traffic direction (Baker, 1988). The level of crime is currently relatively low at Longacres (Baker, 1988). Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Police protection is currently more difficult at the Renton Shopping Center site than at the Longacres site because of access, its location in a densely developed area, and high traffic volumes. The relatively high level of crime places a greater burden on Department resources both for protection and crime prevention (Baker, 1988). Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area The affected environment to this alternative is described on page 122 of the DEIS. 78 Significant Impacts Both of the alternative sites and a portion of the Orillia Comprehen- sive Plan Map Amendment Area are currently developed. Any future develop- ment of regional retail uses at any of the locations, however, would increase the number of people and commercial structures on the site. The increased intensity of use, presence of merchandise, and increased density of people would be expected to generate an increase in the number of calls related to parking lot and commercial crime. Because specific businesses and the site plan have not been identified, it is not possible to reliably forecast the number and nature of calls (Baker, 1988). Development of either of the sites would lead to increased traffic volumes and congestion in the vicinity. Congestion can have a significant effect on emergency response times. Increases in traffic volume, particularly in a commercial setting, also increases the need for traffic enforcement and accident investigation (Baker, 1988). Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Due to the current seasonal nature of activities at this site (during the racing season) and the type of structures, a change to year -round regional retail use would increase demand for and nature of police protection services required for the site (Baker, 1988). Because Longacres currently employs its own security officer and only contracts for an officer from the City on racing days, the impact of the proposed development at this site would be similar to that estimated under the Development Scenario "A" of the Proposed Action. In order to better serve the development, the Police Department estimates that approximately four law - enforcement officials would need to be added to the force at an annual cost of $249,100 (in 1995 dollars) (Baker, 1988). Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Because this site is currently used for commercial activity and developed in a cluster -type pattern, development as proposed would not be a substantial change in use. The type of police protection services required for the site, therefore, would not change substantially. The Police Department estimates that approximately four law- enforcement officials would need to be added to the force at a cost of $249,600 (Baker, 1988). Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area The impacts of this alternative are described on page 124 of the DEIS. Mitigation Measures See page 125, DEIS. 79 PARKS AND RECREATION Affected Environment As described on page 125 of the DEIS, the City of Renton recreation facilities are maintained by the City Parks and Recreation Department under the direction of the Park Board and the Department Director. Long -term goals and objectives for the development of the City Parks and Recreational System are summarized in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan that was adopted as an element of the City Comprehensive Plan in April 1984. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative This site is located in the Green River Valley neighborhood area, west of the Talbot Hill /Springbrook neighborhood, similar to the Proposed Action. A discussion of the affected environment in the Green River Valley neighbor- hood and the Talbot Hill /Springbrook neighborhood is contained in the DEIS, page 126 and Table 18. The Longacres Race Track is a significant regional recreation resource that provides recreational opportunities for 4 -6 months per year. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative This site is located in both the West Hill /Earlington Hill neighborhood and the North and South Renton neighborhood. The Green River Valley and Talbot Hill /Springbrook neighborhoods are located directly to the south. The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan indicates that the North and South Renton neighborhood currently experiences considerable recreation demand from large numbers of daytime employees. Residential core neigh- borhoods, however, are well served by neighborhood and community parks and City staff consider all parks facilities in this neighborhood to be in good or very good condition (City of Renton, 1984). The Plan indicates that the West Hill /Earlington Hill neighborhood, although it does not experience any unusual population demands on recreation resources, is deficient in neighborhood park facilities. Only one park, Earlington Park, is available to serve the entire neighborhood. A need for a neighborhood park in the West Hill area is indicated (City of Renton, 1984). Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area The affected environment for this alternative is described on page 125 of the DEIS. Significant Impacts At the alternative sites, the proposed development would result in an increase in intensity and number of employees over the current condition. The employees of the development could increase the demands on existing recreational facilities. 80 Although the City of Renton does not have a standard for open space based on an employment factor, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standard for on -site recreational park use is one acre per 500 employees. For the purpose of this assessment, because the development that is assumed to occur on the alternative sites is similar to that which would . occur under the Development Scenario "A" of the Proposed Action, the NRPA standard can be applied to the number of employees anticipated. The demand for recreational land could be up to 4.4 acres, based on the NRPA standard and the anticipated number of employees. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Development of this site as a regional commercial facility would preclude its use as a race track, a form of recreational use. This use may or may not be relocated as a result of development of this alternative. Development in the Green River Valley neighborhood and the Talbot Hill /Springbrook neighborhood would increase demand for recreational facilties. As there are no active recreation facilities in the area, it is expected that the supply of recreation facilities may not be sufficient to accommodate future demand. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Development of this site would increase demand for recreational facilities in both the West Hill /Earlington Hill neighborhood and the North 1 and South Renton neighborhood, and to a lesser extent in the Green River Valley and Talbot Hill /Springbrook neighborhoods directly to the south of the site. The impact would be greatest, however, in the North and South Renton neighborhood because it is currently experiencing considerable recreation demand from large numbers of daytime employees. Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area The impacts of this alternative are described on page 129 of the DEIS. Mitigation Measures See page 129, DEIS. UTILITIES The utilities discussed under this section include Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater, Natural Gas, and Electricity. This section briefly characterizes the utility system serving the alternative locations and assesses the effects of each of the alternatives on the availability and capacity of utilities. Due to the programmatic nature of the action, the potential impacts associated with each of the alternatives are evaluated by assuming that development on each site would be similar to the conceptual Development Scenario "A" of the Proposed Action, as defined on page 14 -16 of the DEIS. 81 Water Affected Environment As described on page 105 of the DEIS, water service is provided by the Municipal Water Department of the City of Renton, which draws water from three municipal wells. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. The well site closest to the site is Springbrook Springs on Talbot Hill. The Talbot Hill Reservoir, a 5.0 million'gallon facility, is located east of the site at Talbot Road and South 19th Street. The Longacres site is served by a 12 -inch water main along the eastern boundary, a 12 -inch main along S.W. 16th Street on the northern boundary, and a 10 -inch main along Jackson S.W. on the western boundary. These lines are considered adequate to serve the existing uses in the area. Fire flow at hydrants on the 10 -inch main along Jackson S.W. is approximately 1,958 gallons per minute (gpm) per hydrant, with a maximum capacity for the main of 4,028 gpm (Benoit, 1988). Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. The three municipal wells that serve the site are located at Bronson Way North and Park Avenue North in Liberty Park, which are approximately one mile to the east of this site. Water also is available from the Talbot Hill Reservoir. The site is served by a 16 -inch water main along Rainier Avenue South north of South Third Place, and an 8 -inch main south of South Third Place, on the eastern boundary. A 12 -inch main runs along Hardie Avenue S.W. on the western boundary of the site. These lines are considered adequate to serve the existing uses in the area (Olsen, 1988). Fire flow at hydrants on the 16 -inch main along Rainier Avenue South is approximately 2,506 gpm per hydrant, with a maximum capacity for the main of 8,345 gpm (Benoit, 1988). Flow at hydrants on the 8 -inch main is approxi- mately 1,253 gpm per hydrant, or 4,805 gpm maximum flow for the main (Benoit, 1988). Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area. The affected environment for this alternative is described on page 105 of the DEIS. Fire flow at hydrants on the 16 -inch main along Lind Avenue S.W. is approximately 1,958 gpm per hydrant, with a 7,537 gpm maximum for the main (Benoit, 1988). Flow at hydrants on the 12 -inch main on East Valley Road is approximately 2,506 gpm, with a maximum capacity for the main of 6,361 gpm (Benoit, 1988). Significant Impacts Development under each of the alternatives would result in water consumption that would be dependent on the actual uses developed on the site. Typical rates of water consumption for various types of uses are presented in Table 13, on page 107 of the DEIS. The primary water users 82 would be the employees and customers of retail businesses, the fire suppression system and landscaping. In order to project the total daily water consumption that could result from development of each of the alternative sites, three rate estimates can be used: (1) consumption per employee per day, (2) consumption per square foot of gross building area per day, or (3) consumption rate for a comparable regional commercial center (see page 107 of the DEIS). Using Development Scenario "A" of the Proposed Action and assuming 1.1 million square foot gross building area and 2,200 employees, the average rate of water consumption under each of the alternatives is estimated to be between 31,100 gallons and 165,000 gallons per day (see Table 14, DEIS). The amount of water required to meet the fire flow standards of the City of Renton depends on the type of construction, gross floor area and height of any buildings constructed. As determined by the Insurance Services Office (ISO), for a regional commercial development of 1.1 million square foot gross building area, "ordinary" or possibly fire - resistive construction (as defined by ISO), with individual internal sprinkler systems, the fire flow requirement would be approximately 4,500 gallons per minute (gpm), with a maximum possible requirement of 6,000 gpm (O'Clare, 1988). Water consumption also could be required for landscaped areas. This requirement would vary based on the size of the site and the maximum impervious surface estimates for the designated zone. The amount of irrigation required could have an important influence on overall water consumption. It should be noted that installation of water mains on -site and the associated cost would be the responsibility of the developer. Based on information provided by representatives of the City of Renton Department of Public Works, it is assumed that existing water service is adequate at all three alternative sites to meet the increased need for employee and customer use and fire suppression systems. Consequently, there would be no cost to the City for water main improvements. The City of Renton charges a Special Utility Connection Charge (SUCC) of $0.04 per square foot of site area prior to development. This fee would be revenue for the City at the time any of the alternative sites is developed. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. As discussed above, it is assumed that the existing water system serving the site is adequate to meet the increased water demand (Olsen, 1988). Prior to subdivision of this 174 -acre site for development of a portion as a commercial center, connection charges (SUCC) would be required by the City. Revenue for the City would be $303,178, less a partial payment already collected of $16,632, for a total of $286,546 (Benoit, 1988). An estimate of landscaped areas that would use water for irrigation purposes, based on the maximum impervious surface for the B -1 zone of 92% of the site area and a site area of 174 acres, is calculated to be approxi- mately 13.9 acres. Because a substantial portion of the site has wetlands, however, it is likely that more than 13.9 acres at the site would be pervious. 83 Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. As discussed above, it is assumed that the existing water system serving the site is adequate to meet the increased water demand (Olsen, 1988). The City would not realize any revenue from connection charges (SUCC) on the 25.8 -acre Renton Center site because the utility connection charge already has been paid by the owner (Benoit, 1988). The 13 -acre area west of the existing Renton Center would incur a connection charge of approximately $22,651 (Benoit, 1988). In addition, a latecomers agreement for a water main extension in Maple Avenue S.W. would result in an additional fee of $26,205 (Benoit, 1988). An estimate of landscaped areas that could use water for irrigation purposes, based on the maximum impervious surface for the B -1 zone of 92% of the site area and a site area of 38.8 acres, is calculated to be approxi- mately 3.1 acres. It should be noted that the amount of impervious surface would increase somewhat over existing impervious surface, which corresponds to nearly all of the Renton Center property and those portions of the Hardie Avenue S.W. and S.W. Fifth Place that are impervious. Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area. As discussed on page 109 of the DEIS, it is assumed that the existing water system serving the site is adequate to meet the increased water demand (Olsen, 1988). The City would not realize any revenue from connection charges (SUCC) on the 46 -acre rezone site (within the Amendment Area) because the fee already has been paid by the owner (Benoit, 1988). Mitigation Measures See page 111, DEIS. Sanitary Sewer Affected Environment As described on page 111 of the DEIS, wastewater collection is provided by the City of Renton Department of Public works. Metro treats wastewater collected by the City of Renton. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. The site is served by a Metro trunk line on the eastern boundary of the site and another trunk line that bisects the site on the southern end. An 8 -inch gravity line runs on the northern boundary of the site along S.W. 16th Street. These lines are considered adequate to serve the existing uses in the area (Olsen, 1988). Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. The site is served by an 8 -inch gravity main along Hardie Avenue S.W. on the western boundary of the site, and a 12 -inch main along SR -900 on the northern boundary. A private lift station and a network of 8 -inch gravity mains installed by Sears, one of the current Renton Center tenants, is located on the site. The City of Renton lines are considered adequate to serve the existing use in the area (Olsen, 1988). The private system is adequate to serve the existing Sears store, however, it would not be adequate to serve any increased development on the site (Olsen, 1988). 84 Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area. The affected environment for this alternative is described on page 111 of the DEIS. Significant Impacts An increase in wastewater flows to the sanitary sewer facilities would result from any use developed under the alternatives. Typical rates of wastewater flow for various types of development are presented in Table 15 of the DEIS. The primary wastewater generators would be the employees and consumers that could occupy the developed site under each of the alternatives. Wastewater flows vary by time of year, local climate, and daily use requirements. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the quantities of wastewater generated can be estimated based on water consumption figures. Using the Proposed Action Development Scenario "A" (see Table 16, DEIS), the estimated wastewater projection for each of the alternatives would be 166,500 gallons per day. This estimate is based only on retail employees and customers. More intensive wastewater generators, such as restaurants or car washes, could be developed at either location and could increase the estimated wastewater volume. It should be noted that for each of the alternatives, installation of sewer mains on -site and the associated cost would be the responsibility of the developer. In addition, if the system requirements need to be expanded in order to accommodate the wastewater generated by the development, then the property owners would be responsible for the necessary improvement. Based on information provided by representatives of the City of Renton Department of Public Works, it is expected that existing sewer service would be adequate at all three sites to meet the increased demand (Olsen, 1988). Consequently, there would be no direct cost to the City for sewer system improvements. The City of Renton charges a Special Utility Connection Charge (SUCC) of $0.04 per square foot of site area prior to development. This fee would be revenue for the City at the time any of the alternative sites is developed. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. As discussed above, it is assumed that the existing sewer system serving the site is adequate to meet the increased sewer demand (Olsen, 1988). Prior to subdivision of this 174 -acre site for development of a portion as a commercial center, connection charges (SUCC) would be required by the City. Revenue for the City would be $303,178, plus $700.00 (14 connections at $50.00 per connection), for a total of $303,878 (Benoit, 1988). Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. As discussed above, it is assumed that the existing City of Renton sewer system serving the site is adequate to meet the increased sewer demand; however, the private system would not be adequate to serve any increased development (Olsen, 1988). Revenue for the City from connection charges (SUCC) on the 25.8 -acre site to connect with the city system would be $44,954, plus $700.00 (14 connections at $50.00 per connection), for a total of $45,654 (Benoit, 1988). The 13 -acre area west of the existing Renton Center would incur a connection charge of approximately $22,651 (Benoit, 1988). 85 Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area. As discussed above and on page 113 of the DEIS, it is assumed that the existing sewer system serving the site is adequate to meet the increased sewer demand. Revenue for the City from connection charges (SUCC) on the 46 -acre site would be $80,150, plus $700.00 (14 connections at $50.00 per connection), for a total of $80,850 (Benoit, 1988). Mitigation Measures See page 114, DEIS. Stormwater Affected Environment Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. The Water Resources section of the DEIS, beginning on page 91, generally describes stormwater collection conditions in the Green River Valley. The Longacres site is located in the floodplain of the Green River. The Longacres development currently occupying the site has a pump station that releases stormwater into Springbrook Creek, which flows east of the site. The proposed P -1 channel would border this site on the east. In addition, the City of Tukwila, as part of the proposed Nelson Place /Longacres Way Storm Drainage System, would install a 42 -inch stormwater collection pipe along S.W. 16th. Street, on the northern boundary of the site. This main would convey stormwater to the P -1 channel at a box culvert to be located at the northeast corner of the site. Stormwater could continue to exit the Longacres site using the existing drainage system (City of Tukwila, 1988). Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. The current Renton Center development has a stormwater drainage system consisting of a network of 12 -inch collections pipes that drain into a collection system located along Hardie Avenue S.W. This collection system is considered inadequate to accommodate any increased development in the area (Price, 1988). Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area. The affected environment for this alternative is described on page 95 of the DEIS. Significant Impacts In order to project the impacts that could result from development of each of the alternative sites, certain assumptions have been made. These assumptions correspond to those used for assessing stormwater impacts related to regional retail center development on the Orillia Center site, and are described as follows: . the amount of stormwater runoff generated from the site is related to land use and the amount of impermeable surface coverage; . the maximum impermeable surface coverage that could be added to the proposed rezone site is based on landscaping requirements under existing zoning or under the proposed rezone; 86 ▪ the rate and volume of stormwater runoff was calculated by the rational method and is based on the assumptions mentioned above; • any development occurring on the proposed rezone site would have on -site stormwater detention facilities per City regulations. Using Development Scenario "A" of the Proposed Action and assuming probable impervious surface coverage of 92% for the B -1 zone, the amount of on -site peak storm runoff for a 25 -year event can be calculated for each site. Although the acreage of each site, and, therefore, the peak storm runoff, would vary with each site, the rate of discharge could be controlled to reflect predeveloped conditions through on -site detention. The cost of stormwater controls and on -site detention facilities would be the responsi- bility of the developer. It is assumed that development of a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would result in an area of impervious surface comparable to the Orillia Center location; this would result in a need for 68,000 cubic feet of detention. It is estimated that the Renton Center Area Location would require 57,000 cubic feet of detention. The only cost to the City of Renton related to stormwater management would be for maintenance of off -site collection pipes. Based on information' from representatives of the City of Renton Stormwater Utility, this cost is estimated to be between $2,000 and $3,000 per year, assuming the use of two men, one sewer jet, and a total of two days of work at 15 hours per day (Price, 1988). If on -site detention facilities are constructed, the cost to the City likely would be less than this amount. Development of a regional retail center at Longacres would require special treatment due to its location in the floodplain. Any fill that is placed on the site to provide a suitable foundation and protect the structures from floodwaters would require the establishment of compensating flood storage. Natural Gas Affected Environment As described on page 114 of the DEIS, natural gas is supplied to each of the alternative sites by the Washington Natural Gas Company. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. The site is served by 4 -inch diameter pipes in S.W. 16th Street, which borders the site on the north. There currently are no connections serving the Longacres Race Track. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. The site is served by 2 -inch diameter pipes in Rainier Avenue South, which borders the site on the east, and 4 -inch diameter pipes in S.W. Sunset Boulevard, which borders the site on the north. Two -inch diameter connections serve the existing Renton Shopping Center buildings on the site. Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area. The affected environment for this alternative is described on page 114 of the DEIS. 87 Significant Impacts Natural gas may or may not be used in the development allowed under each of the alternatives. Retail uses that could be developed, similar to those that could be developed under Development Scenario "A" of the Proposed Action, generally are not significant users of natural gas. Natural gas, however, could be used for water heating, particularly if restaurants are included in the development at any of the alternative sites. Installation of natural gas mains on -site and the associated cost would be the responsibility of the developer. In addition, if the system require- ments need to be expanded in order to accommodate the demand generated by the development, then the property owners would be responsible for the necessary improvement. Based on information provided by representatives of Washington Natural Gas, it is assumed that existing gas pipes are adequate at all three alternative sites to meet increased demand. Consequently, there would be no cost to WNG for gas line improvements. Mitigation Measures See page 115, DEIS. Electricity Affected Environment As discussed on page 116 of the DEIS, electricity is provided to the alternative sites by Puget Sound Power and Light Company (Puget Power). Each of the alternative sites is served by underground utility lines. According to representatives of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company, shortfalls in the level of service that had characterized the area in the past were a result of rapid growth. This has been corrected so that there is adequate power for future development (Corbin, 1988). Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. Two substations would be capable of providing electricity to this site. The Renton Junction substation is located east of the intersection of West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard, immediately south of the site. The second substation is located south of S.W. 16th Street, between Raymond Avenue S.W. and Lind Avenue S.W., east of the site. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. Two substations would be capable of providing electricity to this site. The substation south of S.W. 16th Street (described under the Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative), would be available, as well as a second substation, west of SR -515, at the intersection of SR -515 and South Grady Way. Both substations are south of the Renton Center Area Location Alternative site. Orillia Comprehensive Plan Mae Amendment Area. The affected environ- ment for this alternative is described on page 116 of the DEIS. 88 Significant Impacts Development of either of the alternatives is not expected to adversely affect the existing level of electrical service. The existing system and improvements have been designed to provide adequate power to users of electricity in the area. The main concern of the Puget Power representa- tives is related to obtaining permitting for any required line extensions and access to each site. Extension of lines to newly developing areas is not as difficult as extension to areas that already are substantially developed (Corbin, 1988). Access, permit delays, and obtaining easements in developed areas can hinder provision of required upgrades in electricity. Using the Proposed Action Development Scenario "A" (see Table 17, DEIS), the uses expected with the development is projected to require approximately 23.3 million KWH per year of electricity. Electrical uses would include interior and exterior lighting, space conditioning, appliance ' and equipment use, and could include water heating. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. Access in this area is good because the area still is relatively undeveloped and power availability is sufficient to meet demand. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative. Power is adequate to meet demand, however, access to the site from the substations is poor due to the substantial development surrounding the site, including railroad tracks that would have to be crossed on the site's south boundary, and major arterials in the area. Orillia Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area. See pages 116 and 117 of the DEIS. Mitigation Measures See page 117, DEIS. 89 ECONOMICS This chapter profiles the employment, sales and municipal revenues associated with existing uses at the Longacres and Renton Center sites and describes the existing distribution of comparison goods purchases by the population in the South End Market Area. This chapter also examines the potential impacts of the development of a regional retail center at the Orillia Center site, Longacres Area Location and the Renton Center Area Location on other retail centers and commercial areas and businesses in the South End Market Area that sell comparison goods. The market analysis information presented in this chapter is summarized from the report "Market Analysis and Economic Impacts of Alternative Re- gional Retail Development Sites Renton Washington." This report, which was prepared by Conger and Clarke, Inc., is available for review at the City of Renton. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT An overall description of employment and municipal revenues and expenditures in the City of Renton is presented in the DEIS on pages 131 through 134 and Appendix 0. Retail Sales of Comparative Goods in the South End Market Regional retail centers focus on the sale of comparison goods, which are reflected by the following categories: General Merchandise Apparel Furniture Specialty General Merchandise This major classification includes sales related to retail stores which sell a combination of different lines of merchandise such as dry goods, apparel and accessories, furniture and home furnishings, small repairs, hardware and food. This category is primarily related to department stores, variety stores, and general merchandise stores. Apparel This classification includes sales primarily related to retail stores engaged in selling clothing of all kinds and related articles for personal wear. 90 Furniture This classification includes sales related to retail stores selling goods used for furnishing the home, such as furniture, floor coverings, draperies, glass and chinaware, domestic stoves, refrigerators and household electric and gas appliances. Specialty The specialty classification includes sales related to the following retail store types: General Line Sporting Goods Book Stores Jewelry Stores Camera and Photographic Supply Stores Luggage and Leather Good Stores Sewing, Needlework and Knitting Goods Stores Specialty Line Sporting Goods Stationary Stores Hobby, Toy and Game Shops Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Shops Based on population data for the identified South End Market Area and statewide averages of per capita expenditures on the four categories of comparison goods, the retail potential for comparison goods was calculated. Table 9 summarizes South End Market Area population, per capita expenditures by comparison goods category and South End comparison goods retail sales potential that are calculated to exist currently and that are forecasted for the future. Table 9 also identifies the square footage that is justified for the retailing of comparison goods. The justified square footage is calculated by dividing the South End Market Area Comparison Goods Retail Potential by an Urban Land Institute figure for average sales per square foot. In considering these figures it is important to note that these figures reflect sales volumes for South End Market Area residents only, and do not take into account the significant amount of dollars that enter this marketplace from outside of the trade area boundaries. Each of the comparison goods retail centers or locations in the South End Market Area was profiled by identifying key anchor tenants and deter- mining gross leaseable area by each of the four comparison goods categories. The total estimated sales capacity of each of the centers then was calcu- lated. Since many of the comparison goods retailers serve a regional area that extends beyond the South End Market Area, the total estimated sales capacity then was adjusted to reflect the percentage of total estimated sales that was reasoned to be generated by consumers within the South End Market Area. The profile of retailers of comparison goods in the South End Market Area is presented in Table 10. 91 Population Primary Trade Area Secondary Trade Area Table 9 SOUTH END MARKET AREA COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL AND JUSTIFIED RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE 1988 1990 1995 43,446 113,359 Total Trade Area 156,805 Per Capita Expenditures General Merchandise Apparel Furniture Specialty $883 399 505 410 Total 2,197 South End Market Area Com arison Goods Sales Potential in 000's General Merchandise $138,458.8 Apparel 62,565.2 Furniture 79,186.5 Specialty 64,290.1 Total $344,500.6 Average Sales Volume /SF $161 Justified SF 2,139,755 45,520 118,607 164,127 $919 415 526 427 2,287 $150,832.7 68,112.7 86,330.8 70,082.2 $375,358.4 $168 2,234,276 Source: Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b. 92 51,762 134,090 185,852 $1,014 458 576 472 2,520 $188,453.9 85,120.2 107,050.8 87,722.1 $468,347.0 $185 2,531,605 2000 58,003 149,572 207,575 $1,120 505 637 520 2,782 $232,484.0 104,825.4 132,225.3 107,939.0 $577,473.7 $204 2,830,753 0 Carparison Gams Retailer Pavilion Outlet Center Parkruy Plaza Center Place Partway Square Southcenter NUIl Frei Mayer Slopping Center Renton Center Free Standing Furn. Stores Doman Renton Total South End Market Area Carparison Lhcaptured South End Market Area Table 10 PROFILE OF RETAILERS OF COMPARISON COCOS IN THE SOUTH END MARKET AREA Anchor Tenants NUn st ran Rack, Marshall s Best, Bon Rile Store Pier 1 Lgports Toys R' Us Om, IbNstron, J.C. Penney, Frederick & Nk:lson Fred Meyer Sears, J.C. Penney Levitz, R.B., Dania Ethan Allen Goods Sales Potential Carparison foods Sales Potential Source: Conger and Clarke, Inc., 19880. Gross Total Estimated 1988 Carparisan Leaseable Coals Retail Sales Capacity (in $00s) Aura (in General sq. ft.) Merchandise Apparel Furniture Specialty Total 180,118 740,000 38,000 47,000 1,256,950 224,000 244,500 230,000 130,000 3,090,458 % of Sales Sales Capacity Derive.' Derived Fran Fran South South End End Market Market Market (in $o13s) Share $ 0.0 $15,435.7 $700.0 $12,648.0 $ 28,783.7 55% $ 15,831.0 4.6'% 14,000.0 0.0 56,000.0 39,000.0 109,000.0 55% 59,950.0 17.4% 0.0 1,700.0 3,500.0 450.0 5,650.0 55% 3,107.5 O.9% 0.0 2,040.0 4,200.0 750.0 6,990.0 55'% 3,844.5 1.1% 138,416.3 68,000.0 2,240.0 7,500.0 216,156.3 504 108,078.2 31.4% 21,875.0 5,610.0 4,620.0 4,950.0 37,055.0 75% 27,791.3 8.1% 26,250.0 3,400.0 1,400.0 9,675.0 40,725.0 75% 30,543.8 8.9% 0.0 0.0 32,200.0 0.0 32,200.0 351 11,270.0 3.3% 10,500.0 1,700.0 4,200.0 4 500.0 20,900.0 75% 15,675.0 4.6% $211,041.3 $97,855.7 $109,060.0 $79,473.0 $497,460.0 55% 5276,091.3 80.1% $344,500.6 100.0% $68,409.3 19.9% The residual sales potential, or uncaptured sales potential, is illus- trated at the bottom of Table 10. The existing total comparison goods re- tail expenditures of the South End Market Area residents is $344.5 million. Subtracting the effective competition, or sales that are presently being captured by the existing facilities, the residual, or uncaptured sales are estimated. This existing residual potential is estimated at $68.4 million, which represents 20% of the total trade area retail potential. This residual amount represents dollars for comparison goods that are being generated by the South End Market Area population, and that are spent at facilities outside of the trade area. Competition outside of the trade area includes locations such as Factoria, Bellevue Square, Downtown Seattle, t4orthgate and Sea -Tac Mall. By applying the sales capacity ratio to the residual sales that are presently leaving this market place, an indication of the demand for additional facilities is calculated. This is summarized as follows: Residual Sales ($000's) $68,409.3 Average Sales Capacity /SF $161 Indicated Additional Square Feet Justified 424,902 As indicated by the residual analysis, the trade area can support additional comparison goods retail facilities totaling 424,902 square feet. The following summarizes the total residual sales estimate, as well as the amount of comparison goods retail space that is justified to satisfy the South End market population: 1988 1990 1995 2000 Total Trade Area $344,500,600 Comparison Goods Potential Total Sales Captured 276,091,300 Residual Sales 68,409,300 Average Sales Capacity /SF 161 Indicated Additional 424,902 SF Justified $375,358,400 287,245,500 88,112,900 168 524,482 $468,347,000 317,142,300 151,204,700 185 817,323 $577,473,700 350,151,100 227,322,600 204 1,114,326 Considering the expected growth in population within this trade area, the residual or unsatisfied sales potential is projected to increase to $227.3 million by the year 2000. This would be enough sales to justify an additional 1,114,326 square feet of retail space in this trade area. Thus, it appears that an additional regional retail center in this market area is justified by the existing demand levels. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Employment Longacres is a commercial recreation resource of regional significance. During the nine month period ending on June 30, 1988 the businesses operating at Longacres reported nearly 38,000 worker -hours of employment (Clements, 1988c), which translates into approximately 190 worker -years of full -time employment. The employment is seasonal in nature, with peak demands occurring during the racing season. 94 Municipal Revenues The City of Renton Finance Department has provided the following information on tax revenues generated by the Longacres operations: Business License (nine months) Sales Tax Admissions Tax Property Tax Utilities Taxes TOTAL $ 11,008 not available 136,000 67,926 8,030 $155,038 It should be noted that sales tax information is proprietary. The Renton sales tax rate, which is 1% of sales, would be applied to the sale of goods offered by the concessionaires operating at Longacres. While this sales figure cannot be ascertained, it is expected that it is an important contribution to City revenues. Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Renton Center is a community retail center that offers goods and services to several neighborhoods. Sears and J.C. Penney's are anchor tenants with approximately 55 other retail outlets, including apparel stores, furniture stores, specialty stores, restaurants and consumers service outlets, such as a travel agency, bank, laundromat and beauty salon. Total gross leaseable area is 309,500 square feet of which 224,000 is dedicated to comparison goods. Employment It is estimated that there are approximately 600 employees at the existing Renton Center. Municipal Revenues The City of Renton Finance Department has provided the following information on tax revenues generated by the existing Renton Center. Business License (nine months) Sales Tax Property Tax Utilities Taxes TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS $ 28,200 401,100 94,400 4,800 $528,500 After the introduction of new regional retail center in the South End Market Area, a redistribution of sales is expected to occur. A new location is expected to divert some of the sales from existing facilities, as well as capture some of the residual sales that are leaving the marketplace at the 95 present time. The market analysis concluded that if a new development is assumed to be in place at either the Orillia Center or Longacres Area Locations and is competing for retail expenditures in 1990, then the total expenditures captured by all comparison goods retailers in the South End Market Area, including a new location, could be raised to 87.5% of the total potential compared with the present capture ratio of $80 %. The overall cap- ture ratio would not increase with the redevelopment of the Renton Center site because it is competing for comparison goods retail dollars at the present time. No Action Alternative A No Action Alternative was generated in order to provide a basis for comparison of the regional retail center alternatives. The No Action Alternative is characterized by no new development of comparison goods retailers that would serve the South End Market Area. Using a 2% annual real increase in total sales for the forecasting period (1988, 1990, 1995 and 2000), total annual sales (which includes comparison goods sales to consumers both in and out of the South End Market) were estimated for each of the comparison goods retailers located in the South End Market Area. Table 11 presents the sales estimates for 1988, 1990, 1995 and 2000 under the No Action Alternative. Comparison goods retail sales taxes are expected to be affected after the development of a regional retail center at any of the three locations. Therefore, in order to establish a baseline for comparison purposes, sales tax for the retailing of comparison goods has been calculated. Renton and Tukwila will receive the greatest impacts. Nearby jurisdictions such as Kent, Bellevue, Burien, and Seattle also will be affected, however, the impacts are expected to be negligible. To determine the impact on sales taxes, an initial projection of comparison goods sales by existing facilities in the Cities of Renton and Tukwila has been completed for the projection period, assuming no additional comparison goods retail development. This projection is based on actual 1987 sales statistics published by the Washington State Department of Revenue, updated for 1988 by assuming a 4% inflationary increase and a 2% real increase. The estimated 1988 sales are then projected for the years 1990, 1995, and 2000 in constant 1988 dollars, assuming a real increase in sales of 2% annually. Table 12 presents for 1990, 1995 and 2000 the municipal sales tax revenue projected from the sale of comparison goods in the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila. Orillia Regional Retail Center Alternative Employment It is estimated that a regional retail center located at the Orillia Rezone site would employ 2200 employees, 20 fewer than estimated in the DEIS. Assuming that the center is developed in phases, with 600,000 square feet developed by 1990 in the first phase and 400,000 square feet developed by 1995 in the second phase, Phase I would add approximately 1,300 employees and Phase II would add 900 additional employees to the City of Renton employment base. 96 TABLE 11 ESTIMATED COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL SALES BY CENTER IN THE SOUTH END MARKET AREA BY ALTERNATIVE No Action Alternative Sales Orillia Center Alternative Percent Sales Change YEAR 1990 TOTAL COMPARISON GOODS SALES BY CENTER • Orillia Regional Retail Center • Longacres Reg. Retail Center • Renton Center • Center Place • Downtown Renton • Fred Meyer Shopping Center • Free - standing Furn. Stores • Parkway Plaza • Parkway Square • Pavilion Outlet Center • Southcenter Mall $0 $114,000,000 $0 $0 542,370,300 537,637,100 -12.8% $5,878,300 $5,490,400 -10.6% 521,744,400 $18,960,300 -12.8% $38,552,000 534,073,800 -12.8% 533,500,900 $31,741,400 -6.0% $113,403,600 $103,934,600 -9.6% $7,272,400 $6,594,500 -9.3% $29,946,600 $27,473,100 -9.8% $224,889,000 $207,815,500 -8.8% YEAR 1995 TOTAL COMPARISON GOODS SALES BY CENTER • Orillia Regional Retail Center • Longacres Reg. Retail Center • Renton Center • Center Place • Downtown Renton • Fred Meyer Shopping Center • Free - standing Furn. Stores • Parkway Plaza • Parkway Square • Pavilion Outlet Center • Southcenter Mall $0 $210,000,000 $0 $0 $46,780,200 $39,260,500 -17.6% $6,490,100 $5,822,000 -14.0% $24,007,500 $19,784,600 -17.6% $42,564,500 $35,547,000 -17.6% 536,987,700 $34,197,800 -8.2% 5125,206,700 $110,265,200 -13.1% $8,029,300 $6,998,500 -12.8% 533,063,400 529,144,900 -13.3% 5248,295,600 $221,352,700 -11.9% YEAR 2000 TOTAL COMPARISON GOODS SALES BY CENTER • Orillia Regional Retail Center • Longacres Reg. Retail Center • Renton Center • Center Place • Downtown Renton • Fred Meyer Shopping Center • Free - standing Furn. Stores • Parkway Plaza • Parkway Square • Pavilion Outlet Center • Southcenter Mall $0 $230,000,000 $0 $0 $51,649,100 549,539,000 -6.0% $7,165,600 $7,079,800 -5.7% $26,506,300 $24,940,000 -5.9% $46,994,700 $44,841,600 -5.9% $40,837,400 $40,038,400 -2.7% $138,238,400 $133,854,900 -4.6% $8,865,000 $8,487,400 -4.3% 536,504,700 $35,383,100 -4.8% $274,138,500 $266,227,600 -4.2% Source: Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b 97 Longacres Alternative Percent Sales Change $0 $102,000,000 $37,989,900 $5,359,000 $19,504,500 $34,569,300 $31,895,300 $104,595,200 $6,707,100 $27,544,400 $208,956,600 $0 5180,000,000 $41,199,100 55,844,200 $21,152,600 537,487,400 534,939,900 $114,022,400 $7,313,200 $30,029,300 $228,076,900 $0 $200,000,000 $51,239,100 $7,022,500 $26,308,000 $46,623,000 $40,701,100 $137,135,100 $8,795,700 $36,108,500 $272,077,400 -10.3% -8.8% -10.3% -10.3% -4.8% -7.8% -7.8% -8.0% -7.1% -5.5% -8.9% -8.9% -9.2% -8.1% -0.8% -2.0% -0.7% -0.8% -0.3% -0.8% -0.8% -0.1% -0.8% Renton Center Alternative Percent Sales Change $0 $0 $96,000,000 $5,550,500 $19,741,000 534,892,100 $32,056,700 $105,563,700 56,849,800 527,780,900 $210,777,000 $0 $0 $170,000,000 $6,023,200 $21,277,200 $37,611,800 $35,021,200 $114,580,300 $7,432,000 $30,153,900 $229,165,800 $0 $0 $190,000,000 $7,165,600 $26,465,200 $46,776,400 $40,803,200 5137,842,200 $8,865,000 536,265,700 $273,460,000 126.6% -5.6% -9.2% -9.5% -4.3% -6.9% -5.8% -7.2% -6.3% 263.4% -7.2% -11.4% -11.6% -5.3% -8.5% -7.4% -8.8% -7.7% 267.9% 0.0% -0.2% -0.5% -0.1% -0.3% 0.0% -0.7% -0.2% TABLE 12 ESTIMATED SALES TAX REVENUE IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE No Action Orillia Center Longacres Renton Center Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1990 TOTAL COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUES • City of Renton $1,033,600 $2,041,800 $1,947,600 $1,513,300 • City of Renton - net effect $0 $1,008,200 $914,000 $479,700 • City of Tukwila $3,629,400 $3,316,300 $3,375,800 $3,405,700 • City of Tukwila - net effect $0 ($313,000) ($253,600) ($223,700) 1995 TOTAL COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUES • City of Renton $1,141,200 $3,041,500 $2,806,100 $2,296,600 • City of Renton - net effect $0 $1,900,300 $1,664,900 $1,155,400 • City of Tukwila $4,007,100 $3,536,500 $3,685,400 $3,703,700 • City of Tukwila - net effect $0 ($470,600) ($321,700) ($303,400) 2000 TOTAL COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUES • City of Renton $1,260,000 $3,485,600 $3,250,200 $2,640,900 • City of Renton net effect $0 $2,225,600 $1,990,200 $1,380,900 • City of Tukwila $4,424,200 $4,242,100 $4,390,900 $4,412,700 • City of Tukwila - net effect $0 ($182,100) ($33,200) ($11,500) Source: Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988b. 98 Although the Orillia Center Alternative would reduce retail sales at other businesses (see the following discussion), it is assumed that there would be negligible impacts on employment at affected businesses. Retail Sales of Comparison Goods It is estimated that in 1990 the proposed first phase of a regional retail center at the Orillia Rezone site would generate $114 million in the sale of comparison goods. By 1995 with the proposed addition of the second phase of the center, sales are projected to increase to $210 million and then to increase to $230 million by 2000. (It should be noted that these figures replace the estimate of 1995 sales of $237 million presented in the DEIS.) The Orillia Center would divert a portion of the sales of comparison goods that otherwise would be captured by other retailers of comparison goods both within and outside of the South End Market Area. Table 11 identifies for 1990, 1995 and 2000 the forecasted sale of comparison goods by various comparison goods retail centers and locations that currently serve the South End Market Area. Municipal Revenues The sale of comparison goods would alter existing patterns of tax revenues that are generated by comparison goods, retailers that serve the South End Market Area. As Table 12 indicates, in 1990 the net effect of the Orillia Center would be the generation of an additional $1 million in sales tax revenues for the City of Renton; this would increase to $1.9 million in 1995 and $2.2 million by 2000. (It should be noted that the net effect in sales tax revenues reflects both sales tax revenues generated from the proposed regional retail center and takes into account the 'decrease' in sales tax revenue that otherwise would have been generated by the sale of comparison goods by other retailers in the City of Renton.) The development of the proposed Orillia Center would reduce the retail sales of comparison goods by businesses in the City of Tukwila and, to a lesser extent, other businesses in other jurisdictions. This reduction in sales, in turn, would reduce the amount of sales tax revenues that would accrue to Tukwila. As illustrated in Table 12, in 1990 Tukwila would receive $313,000 less in sales tax revenue with Orillia Center than without any new retailer of comparison goods serving the South End Market Area. In 1995 Tukwila sales tax revenues would be $470,600 less and in 2000 the sales tax revenue would be $182,100 less than with no new comparison goods retailer serving the South End Market Area. Business license fees (assuming $55 /employee) that would accrue to the City would total $121,000. Municipal expenditures (see the DEIS) are expected to total $336,900. Longacres Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Employment A regional retail center located at the Longacres Area Location would result in the existing 190 worker -years of employment at the site being 99 displaced. The regional. retail center's employment level would be the same as the employment profiled for the Orillia Center Alternative, above. Retail Sales of Comparison Goods It is estimated that in 1990 the proposed first phase of a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would generate $102 million in the sale of comparison goods. By 1995 with the addition of the second phase of the center, sales are projected to increase to $180 million, and then to increase to $200 million by 2000. A regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would divert a portion of the sales of comparison goods that otherwise would be captured by other retailers of comparison goods both within and outside of the South End Market Area. Table 11 identifies for 1990, 1995 and 2000 the forecasted sale of comparison goods by various comparison goods retail centers and locations that currently serve the South End Market Area. Municipal Revenues The removal of the existing businesses at Longacres would eliminate the tax revenues that are generated by the businesses. As described above, business license fees (for nine months) and admissions tax revenues that combined total $147,000 would be lost to the City of Renton. In addition, an undisclosed amount of sales tax from Longacres businesses would no longer accrue to the City. The sale of comparison goods would alter existing patterns of tax revenues that are generated by comparison goods retailers that serve the South End Market Area. As Table 12 indicates, in 1990 the net effect of a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location would be the generation of an additional $914,000 in comparison goods retail sales tax revenues for the City of Renton; this would increase to $1.665 million dollars in 1995 and nearly $2 million by 2000. (It should be noted that these figures for net effect in sales tax revenues include only sales tax revenues from the retailing of all comparison goods and do not include the loss of Longacres- generated revenues described in the previous paragraph.) The development of a center at the Longacres Area Location would reduce the retail sales of comparison goods by businesses in the City of Tukwila and, to a lesser extent, other businesses in other jurisdictions. This reduction in sales, in turn, would reduce the amount of sales tax revenues that would accrue to Tukwila. As illustrated in Table 12, in 1990 Tukwila would receive $253,600 less in sales tax revenue with a regional retail center at the Longacres Area Location than without any new retailer of comparison goods serving the South End Market Area. In 1995 Tukwila sales tax revenues would be $321,700 less and in 2000 the sales tax revenue would be $33,200 less than with no new comparison goods retailer serving the South End Market Area. Business license fees are estimated to total $110,500 annually. Property taxes are projected to increase from $68,000 to $1,345,000, while municipal expenditures are projected to be comparable to the expenditures under the Orillia Center Alternative. 1'00 Renton Center Area Location Regional Retail Center Alternative Employment The redevelopment of the existing Renton Center into a regional retail center would result in some loss of existing employment during the process of redeveloping the center area. For the purpose of assessing "worst case" impacts, it is assumed that all existing employment at the center that is not directly related to the existing sale of comparison goods at the center would be lost from the existing center. Furthermore, it is assumed that non - comparison goods employment as it relates to total center employment is directly proportional to the relationship of non - comparison goods and total square footage. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that approximately 165 employees would be lost or displaced to other locations that provide goods and services to the existing Renton Center's trade area. The net increase in employment at the regional retail center at the Renton Center Area Location would reflect a provision for the number of employees at the existing Renton Center that are involved in the retail sales of comparison goods. Thus, it is estimated that there would be a net increase of 1,765 employees. Retail Sales of Comparison Goods It is estimated that in 1990 the proposed first phase of a regional retail center at the Renton Center Area Location would generate $96 million in the sale of comparison goods. By 1995 with the proposed addition of the second phase of the center, sales are projected to increase to $170 million and then to increase to $190 million by 2000. A regional retail center at the Renton Center Area Location would divert a portion of the sales of comparison goods that otherwise would be captured by other retailers of comparison goods both within and outside of the South End Market Area. Table 11 identifies for 1990, 1995 and 2000 the forecasted sale of comparison goods by various comparison goods retail centers and locations that currently serve the South End Market Area. Municipal Revenues The sale of comparison goods would alter existing patterns of tax revenues that are generated by comparison goods retailers that serve the South End Market Area. As Table 12 indicates, in 1990 the net effect of a regional retail center at the Renton Center Area Location would be the generation of an additional $479,000 in comparison goods retail sales tax revenues for the City of Renton; this would increase to $1.155 million dollars in 1995 and then decrease to $1.380 million by 2000. The development of'a center at the Renton Center Area Location would reduce the retail sales of comparison goods by businesses in the City of Tukwila and, to a lesser extent, other businesses in other jurisdictions. This reduction in sales, in turn, would reduce the amount of sales tax revenues that would accrue to Tukwila. As illustrated in Table 12, in 1990 Tukwila would receive $223,700 less in sales tax revenue with a regional 101 retail center at the Renton Center Area Location than without any new retailer of comparison goods serving the South End Market Area. In 1995 Tukwila sales tax revenues would be $303,400 less and in 2000 the sales tax revenue would be $11,500 less than with no new comparison goods retailer serving the South End Market Area. Business license fees are estimated at $97,075. Property taxes are projected to increase from $94,000 to $1,345,000, while municipal expenditures would be comparable to the Orillia Center Alternative. MITIGATING MEASURES None are proposed. 102 C. ORILLIA RETAIL CENTER REZONE SITE - SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES This chapter addresses additional issues that were not addressed in the DEIS. The first topic is plants and animals, which reviews habitat on the site and describes the likely wildlife that are present, and discusses implications of site development. The second topic, transportation, describes the affected environment and impacts of a regional retail center development, focusing on the impacts on selected roadways that were not specifically addressed in the DEIS. PLANTS AND ANIMALS INTRODUCTION A study of the plant and animal communities found on the proposed rezone site was made by reviewing existing literature and by direct field observation on August 16, 1988. Soil maps prepared for the site by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (Snyder, et al., 1973) were reviewed, as were the wetland mappings done by King County (1983) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1973). AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Plants The 46 -acre site exhibits relatively low diversity plant and animal communities with the majority of the flat site being dominated by upland grassland and shrub habitat. Within several slight topographic depressions, there are areas that are considered wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (Corps). The results of a wetland study undertaken to identify possible wetlands under the Corps' jurisdiction are presented below. The Corps has reviewed these results and have concurred with the delineation and mapping growth herein. Upon review of the regulations specified in the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, it was determined that there are no wetlands on the site which fall under the jurisdiction of the Washington Department of Ecology through its Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Program. The Department of Ecology should be contacted, however, to make a final determination of the presence or absence of wetlands under their regulatory jurisdiction. Wetlands Plant Communities Wetland Definition and Authority. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and through the Section 404 permitting process, the Corps has been given the responsibility and authority to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters and adjacent wetlands of the United States. Wetlands are formally defined by the Corps as "...those areas that are inundated or 103 saturated by surface or _groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to suppport, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. "' Although the Corps' wetland definition has been used in the study of the Orillia site, the definition used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is included herein for comparison. The Service defines wetlands as "lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; (:3) the substrate is non -soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et al., 1979). During a Section 404 permit application review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serice has the authority to advise the Corps on the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat by resulting from the proposed action. Study Methods. The field study was based on the methodology developed by the Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). The Corps specifies a multi - parameter approach to wetland delineations that analyzes the site's vegetation, soils and hydrology. Various indicators for each of these three environmental parameters are used as diagnostic characteristics to determine the presence of wetlands. Generally, a minimum of one positive wetland indicator for each of the three parameters must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination. The Orillia site is characterized by several feet of fill material, which was placed on the native soils approximately ten years ago. The presence of fill requires a wetland delineation approach specified by the Corps for what are termed "atypical situations" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). The Corps considers the wetlands on the site to be under their jurisdiction and to be considered man - induced wetlands. For such wetlands, the "...application of the multi - parameter approach in making wetland determinations must be based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). Consequently, the presence of hydric soils, generally considered one of the necessary parameters for positive wetland determination, may not be necessary in making wetland determinations on the proposed rezone. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation and the presence, or evidence of wetland hyydrology are adequate for a positive wetland determination based on this methodology. Results. In the southwestern portion of the site (along Lind Avenue), There is a mosaic of upland and wetland plant community types (see Figure 9). A total of 15 separate patches of wetland vegetation were identified and flagged in this part of the site. These areas are considered wetlands under the Corps' jurisdiction. Two of the areas are parts of drainage ditches. There is an additional area of wetland that exists along the most eastern extension of the abandoned railroad bed, which runs in an east to west direction in the northern half of the site. Appendix E3 lists the scientific and common names of the plant species observed on the site of the proposed rezone. 104 S.W. 34th St T y R Tracks G Lind Ave S.W. i G : G Note: This map shows the approximate boundaries of areas which may be wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This map is for orientation purposes only and is not intended for jurisdictional or site planning purposes. G G East Valley Road S.W. 41st St FIGURE 9 Locations of Wetlands on the Proposed Orillia Retail Center Rezone Site City of Renton 7 Areas of Possible Wetlands �.0 (Scrub/shrub and Emergent Wetlands) G Grasslands 105 Vegetation. Areas were flagged that were dominated by emergent or scrub /shrub vegetation, or a combination of the two communities. Most of the areas are composed of a mix of woody and emergent plant species. Two areas are distinct in that one (the area in the railroad tracks), is composed almost solely of woody scrub /shrub species and the other (the drainage ditch closest to Lind Avenue near the railroad track crossing) is composed almost solely of emergent species. Most of the areas of wetlands are dominated in the shrub layer by black cottonwood and willow saplings. Hardhack spirea is also present, but with minimal cover. The herbaceous layer is typically dominated by common spike rush, Bolander's spike rush, toad rush, soft rush, spreading rush, tapered rush, bentgrass, and redtop bentgrass. Soils. The soils over the entire site are composed of fill with minimal to no soil horizon development.. The soils found in the areas of wetlands are heavily compacted sandy gravels, with a dry matrix color of 10YR 5/3. They exhibit a limited amount of mottling at a depth of 4 -5 ". The mottling appears to be forming in situ, and indicates the influence of a fluctuating water table. There are organic inclusions in the soil that appear to have been brought in with the fill material. No hydric soils were identified on the site during the field study, although hydric soils were mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Snyder, et al., 1973) as the native soils for the site prior to filling. It should be noted that SCS soil maps are based from aerial photographic interpretation with limited field verification. Consequently, for a specific site, actual field verification is necessary to confirm the accuracy of SCS maps. As part of the field work, soil pits were dug to classify the soil types present on the site. Determination of the presence or absence of hydric soils was made, and verification of the soil maps prepared by the Soil Conservation Service was completed. Hydrology. No standing water was present on the site at the time of the survey conducted on August 16, 1988. There is evidence, however, that water stands for extended periods of time during the wetter months of the year in the areas flagged as wetlands. In several areas, there is a dried algal mat that remains from the presence of dense colonies of algae which grew in either standing water or on a wet soil surface. It is assumed that the heavily compacted fill slows rainwater percolation and forces precipitation to stand on or above the soil surface for extended periods during the rainy season. The standing water appears to be present only in the slight topographic depressions in an otherwise flat site. Those depressions are as little as a few inches lower in relief than surrounding upland areas. Areas of wetlands identified on the site exhibit minimal value for storm water retention /detention, aesthetics or wildlife habitat. The 106 heavily compacted soils, unlike hydric soils typically found in wetlands, probably have little capacity for detaining or retaining stormwaters during heavy rainfalls. The plant community cover is relatively sparse providing limited wildlife habitat cover, food and nesting value compared with naturally occurring wetlands, which typically have diverse and complete vegetative cover. Water is present only seasonally during the year, and the site is dessicated during periods of low rainfall. The gravelly soils, appear to provide minimal underground habitat for amphibians, reptiles or invertebrates. Upland Plant Communities and Soils Approximately 38 -39 acres of the site are dominated by an upland, grassland plant community. Due to the dominance of a few grass species, it appears that the site was seeded with grasses sometime shortly after it was filled. The upland plant community is dominated by colonial bentgrass, white clover, meadow sorrel, English plantain, dandelion, redtop bentgrass, suckling clover, and hairgrass. There are widely spaced patches of Scot's broom, a disturbance related species, present in the grassland. The soils in the upland areas are similar to those observed in the areas dominated by wetland plant species. The upland soils, however, are less cemented and less mottled. Minimal mottling was observed at depths of between 15 and 24 inches indicating a water table that fluctuates deeper in the soil than in the areas of wetlands. Animals The terrestrial wildlife population of the site is limited by the dominance of disturbed habitat and the proximity to existing development and human activity. Songbirds and small mammals may occur on the site. Bird species that would be tolerant of human activity include robins, chickadees, finches, and sparrows. There may be shorebirds using the wetland areas in the spring when the wet areas begin to dry and present "mudflat" habitat. Additionally, waterfowl may use the wet areas during the winter and spring months when water stands in the shallow, localized depressions. Rodents, moles, voles, rabbits and shrews may occur on the site, primarily in the upland, grassy areas. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Proposed Action Development Scenario "A" Development under any of the alternatives would remove existing vegetation on the proposed rezone site. Due to the low habitat value of the site's vegetation however, no significant vegetation communities would be affected. Construction activity is expected to have no direct impact on wetlands existing off -site in the general area of the proposed rezone (see Figure 18 of the DEIS, Surface Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed Rezone Site). 107 The functional values of the areas of wetlands on the site would be rated as relatively low using accepted methods of wetland values assessment. The site provides some small amount of habitat to migrant waterfowl during, the winter and spring months when water ponds on the site. Values for groundwater recharge, stormwater retention /detention, hydrologic support; water purification; and recreational and wildlife study opportunities would all be rated low for the site as compared with higher values generally given for larger, recognized wetlands in the Kent Valley. Wildlife that currently inhabits the site, such as small mammals and passerine bird species, would be temporarily or permanently displaced to nearby areas during site construction. No significant terrestrial wildlife communities would be affected because of the site's low wildlife habitat value as a result of its substantial alteration through past filling and its adjacency to already developed areas. Passerine bird species tolerant of human activities would probably reinvade the site following relandscaping and development of the 2% native vegetation areas. Development Scenario "B" Development under this Scenario could have similar impacts as described under Scenario "A ". Alternative 1:1 No Action Under this alternative, site development would result in a slightly greater area devoted to landscaping, which could provide greater wildlife habitat than under the Proposed Action. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1,, No Planned Development Development under this alternative would have similar impacts on the site's vegetation and wildlife as under the Proposed Action. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development Development under this alternative would have similar impacts on the site's vegetation and wildlife as under the Proposed Action. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation for the impacts on upland vegetation and wildlife habitat would include relandscaping and the development of the 2% native vegetation areas. The design of the site's stormwater conveyance and retention /detention system could include the creation of open -water habitat and emergent wetland plant communities to mitigate for the filling of wetlands. Wetland herbaceous and even woody species could be planted around the retention /detention pond's edge and in shallow conductive swales leading to and from it. These wetland habitats could provide valuable feeding, roosting and nesting resources to wildlife not currently using the site 108 because of the absence of suitable habitat. Additionally, the stormwater conveyance and retention /detention system could provide for the purification of stormwater runoff from parking areas and buildings prior to the runoff leaving the site. Because the areas of wetlands are scattered throughout a large part of the site, filling the existing wetlands and replacing them with created wetlands elsewhere on or near the site, or consolidating the existing wetlands into a single unit in one of their present locations, would be desirable from site design and economic perspectives. Such relocation or consolidation of the wetlands could be proposed as long as appropriate mitigation replaces the wetland functions, values and acreage displaced. A carefully designed wetland creation planting plan, with associated written documentation, could be developed and implemented to create replacement wetlands for those proposed for filling. The plan would propose new areas of wetlands with greater wildlife habitat value, stormwater control potential, and water purification capacity than the current areas of low value wetlands. Additional elements of the mitigation plan could be a committment to long -term monitoring of the created wetlands to assess their development and success. A contingency plan could be developed to address and correct possible failures in meeting stated mitigation plan goals. 109 TRANSPORTATION The following subsection is supplemental to the Transportation chapter presented in the DEIS. This subsection examines transportation impacts of the proposed 1.0 million square foot retail center on the Orillia site on road segments external to the VTIP study area, i.e., east of SR -167, south of Southwest 43rd Street, north of I -405, and west of West Valley Highway (including this arterial). Trip generation, distribution and assignment of project traffic to the analysis network was conducted as cited in the "Traffic Impact Analysis for Orillia Center Comprehensive Plan /Rezone" report. The VTIP site use volumes were distributed using the distribution patterns developed for the Orillia Center project traffic. The year 2000 traffic volumes on area arterials are based on year 2000 model loadings prepared by the Transpo Group. The analysis tables presenting volumes and level -of- service are limited by City specification to only those road segments with differential impacts of 5% or greater attributable to the Proposed Action. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS The percent differential impact (% D.I.) for roads external to the study areas has been analyzed. There are 18 roads under observation. These include: 132nd /140th Avenue Southeast, Andover Park West, East Valley Road, Grady Way, Interurban Avenue South, Lind Avenue Southwest, Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, Rainier Avenue South, South Second Street, South Third Street, South 178th /180th Street, Southcenter Parkway, Southeast 192nd Street, Southwest 43rd Street /Petrovitsky Road Southeast, SR- 515/108th Avenue Southeast, Strander Boulevard, Talbot Road, West Valley Highway. Each of these roads is categorized into road segments (18 roads, 64 road segments). Differential impacts were calculated for the 1.0 million square foot retail center on the Orillia site using the following method: (project volume minus VTIP volume) divided by (Transpo year 2000 total volume minus Transpo site use volume) times 100. Table 13 presents a summary of differential impacts and the weighted overall % D.I. for the 1.0 million square foot retail center on the Orillia site. With the 1.0 million square foot retail center on the Orillia site, Southwest 43rd Street /Petrovitsky Road S.E. between the SR -167 northbound ramps and 160th Avenue S.E. is the most heavily impacted link with a 14.1% differential impact. Talbot Road between SR -515 and South 192nd Street follows with 11.3% differential impact. South 192nd Street between Talbot Road and 140th Avenue S.E. shows % D.I. of 9.3 %. South 178th /180th Street between Military Road and West Valley Highway also has % D.I. greater than 5% with 6.6% differential impact. 132nd /140th Avenue S.E. and Southcenter Parkway completes the list of roads with greater than 5% differential impact, with 6.5% and 5.9 %, respectively. The remaining 12 roads have % D.I. of less than 5 %. The weighted overall percent differential impact for the 1.0 million square foot retail center on the Orillia Center Rezone site for roadways external to the Orillia study area is 3.2 %. As may be noted in reviewing 110 Table 13 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY - EXTERNAL LIMITS FOR REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER AT THE ORILLIA REZONE SITE Road Segment Differential - - -- Impact Link Overall 132nd /140th Avenue S.E. 6.5% Fairwood Boulevard - Petrovitsky Road S.E. 10.1% Petrovitsky Road S.E. - S.E. 192nd Street 2.8% Andover Park West 0% Southcenter Boulevard - South 180th Street 0% East Valley Road -1.0% S.W. 43rd Street - South 200th Street -1.0% S.W. Grady Way 1.4% Monster Road - Main Street 1.4% Interurban Avenue 1.7% I -405 - Southcenter Boulevard 1.7% Oakesdale Avenue S.W. 0% S.W. 43rd Street - East Valley Road 0% Rainier Avenue South 2.4% Grady Way - South 7th Street 2.5% South 7th Street - South 3rd Street 2.3% South 3rd Street - South 2nd Street 2.7% South 2nd Street - Airport Way 2.6% South 2nd Street 1.1% Rainier Avenue South - Main Avenue 1.1% South 3rd Street 0% Rainier Avenue South - Main Avenue 0% South 178th /180th Street 6.6% Southcenter Parkway - Andover Park West 9.2% Andover Park West - West Valley Highway 6.2% Southcenter Parkway 5.9% Strander Boulevard - Andover Park West 8.1% S.E. 192nd Street 9.3% SR -515 - 116th Avenue S.E. 16.0% 116th Avenue S.E. - 140th Avenue S.E. 11.8% S.W. 43rd Street /Petrovitsky Road S.E. 14.1% SR -167 Northbound Ramps - Talbot Road 17.8% Talbot Road - SR -515 17.6% SR -515 - 140th Avenue S.E. 12.9% 140th Avenue S.E. - 160th Avenue S.E. 9.3% SR 515/108th Avenue S.E. 2.7% Grady Way - Petrovitsky Road S.E. 0% Petrovitsky Road S.E. - S.E. 192nd Street 8.2% S.E. 192nd Street - S.E. 240th Street 0% Strander Boulevard 1.2% Southcenter Parkway - West Valley Highway 1.2% Talbot Road 11.3% SR -515 - S.W. 43rd Street /Petrovitsky Road S.E. 22.6% S.W. 43rd Street - South 192nd Street 0% West Valley Highway 3.9% I -405 Northbound Ramps - Strander Boulevard 4.2% Strander Boulevard - S.W. 43rd /South 180th Street 0% South 180th Street - South 188th Street 3.0% OVERALL EXTERNAL IMPACT 3.2% Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988a. 111 Table 7 in the "Traffic Impact Analysis for Orillia Center Comprehensive Plan /Rezone" report, the weighted overall percent differential impact for the study area 22 road segments is 11.1 %. Therefore, the cumulative weighted differential impact of the 1.0 million square foot retail center on the Orillia site is 5.2 %. LEVEL -OF- SERVICE IMPACTS Using the VTIP level -of- service analysis approach as defined in the "Volume -To- Capacity Ratios" section of the VTIP, the level -of- service was calculated for road segments external to the study area with 5% or greater differential impact. The total average weekday traffic volume and level -of- service for each of these road segments with and without the proposed 1.0 million square foot retail center is presented in Table 14. Road Segment Table 14 YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE FOR ORILLIA CENTER REZONE SITE WITH AND WITHOUT A REGIONAL RETAIL CENTER ( *) Year 2000 Year 2000 w/o 1.0 MSF Retail Ctr w/ 1.0 MSF Retail Ctr Volume(1) LOS(2) Volume LOS(2) 132nd /140th Avenue S.E. Fairwood Blvd. - S.W. 43rd St. 14,457 A South 178th /180th Street Southcenter Prkwy - Andover 16,576 B Andover Prk W. - W. Valley Hwy 24,452 E Southcenter Parkway Strander Blvd. - Andover Pk W. 17,996 C S.E. 192nd Street SR -515 - 116th Avenue S.E. 16,560 F 116th Ave. S.E. - 140th Ave. S.E. 11,207 D S.W. 43rd Street /Petrovitsky SR -167 N.B. Ramps - Talbot Rd. 61,137 F Talbot Rd. - SR -515 52,999 F SR -515 - 116th Avenue S.E. 50,517 F 116th Ave. S.E. - 140th Ave. S.E. 38,083 F 140th Ave. S.E. - 160th Ave. S.E. 32,573 F SR- 515/108th Avenue S.E. Petrovitsky - S.E. 192nd Street 32,188 F Talbot Road SR -515 - S.W. 43rd Street 7,174 A 16,117 B 19,066 C 26,942 F 20,286 D 19,568 F 12,716 E 73,466 F 63,483 F 57,993 F 43,660 F 36,009 F 35,196 F 9,019 B ( *) External road segments with 5% or greater differential impact. (1) Volume derived by subtracting Transpo Year 2000 Site Use Volumes from Transpo Year 2000 Total Volumes. (2) LOS - level -of- service using existing number of lanes on all segments except Oakesdale Avenue between S.W. 43rd Street and East Valley Road where four lanes are assumed. Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988a. 112 As may be noted in Table 14, of the 13 links with 5% or greater differential impact, seven are expected to operate at LOS F without the addition of the proposed development and six are expected to decrease in level -of- service with the addition of project traffic. South 180th Street between Andover Park West and West Valley Highway are expected to decline from LOS E to F with the addition of project traffic. Talbot Road between SR -515 and Petrovitsky Road East, 132nd /140th Avenue S.E. between Fairwood Boulevard and Petrovitsky Road East, and South 2nd Street between Williams Avenue and Burnett Avenue are expected to drop from LOS A to B. South 180th, Street between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West is expected to experience a decrease in LOS from B to C. Southcenter Parkway between Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West is expected to drop from LOS C to D with the addition of project traffic. Finally, S.E. 192nd Street between 116th Avenue S.E. and 140th Avenue S.E. is expected to decline from LOS D to E with the addition of project traffic. The cumulative level -of- service impacts include the impacts on external road segments, as discussed above, and the impacts to internal road segments as presented in the "Traffic Impact Analysis for Orillia Center Comprehen- sive Plan /Rezone" report. Using the 5% or greater differential impact methodology, it may be noted by comparing Tables 3 and 8 in the "Traffic Impact Analysis" report that the 1.0 million square foot retail center on the Orillia Center Rezone site impacts nine road segments with 5% or greater differential impact. Of these nine links, two are expected to operate at LOS F under VTIP land use assumptions, six are expected to decrease in level -of- service and one is expected to experience increase level -of- service. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the 1.0 million square foot retail center on the Orillia Center Rezone site on the 22 area roadways with 5% or greater differential impact would be as follows: . Nine road segments are expected to operate at LOS F under VTIP land use assumptions (without the proposed regional retail center); . Level -of- service on 12 road segments is expected to decrease with the addition of the proposed regional retail center; and . Level -of- service on one road segment is expected to increase with the addition of the proposed regional retail center. 113 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Adamson, John R., 1988. Memorandum to Glenn Bachman. December 7, 1988. Baker, Lieutenant, 1988. Renton Police Department. Personal communica- tions, August 1988. Benoit, Michael, 1988. Engineer, Renton Public Works Department. Personal communications, August and December 1988. Clarke, Kevin B., 1988. Personal communications, 1988. Clements, Dan, 1988a. Letter to Ned Langford. November 10, 1988. Clements, Dan, 1988b. Letter to Ned Langford. November 17, 1988. Clements, Dan, 1988c. Letter to Ned Langford, with attachments. October 7, 1988. Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988a. Retail Market Dynamics of the Green River Valley within the City Limits of Renton. A report to the Sabey Corporation. January 22, 1988. Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988b. Market Analysis and Economic Impacts of Alternative Regional Retail Development Sites Renton, Washington. October 28, 1988. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classifica- tion of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 103 pp. Gordon, Glen, 1988. Renton Fire Department. Personal communications, March 1987 and August 1988. King County, 1983. King County wetlands inventory notebook, Vol. I -III. King County Planning Division, Seattle, Washington. Olsen, Ron, 1988. Engineer, Renton Public Works Department. Personal communications, August and December 1988. Popp, William E. Associates, 1988. "Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis for Orillia Draft SEIS." November 17, 1988. Popp, William E. Associates, 1988a. " Orillia Center Differential Impact and Level -of- Service Assessment for External Area Network." September 23, 1988. Price,. Chuck, 1988. Renton Stormwater Utility. Personal communication, August 1988. Renton, City of, 1984. Parks and Recreation Plan Renton, City of, 1987. Master Fire Plan Snyder, Dale E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle, 1973. Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. Tukwila, City of, 1988. Nelson Place /Longacres Way Storm Drainage System Preliminary Design. Prepared by Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc., June 1988. Urban Land Institute, 1985. Shopping Center Development Handbook, Second Edition, Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 99 pp. and appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973. National Wetlands Inventory Maps. APPENDIX B COMMON VEGETATION AND THEIR INDICATOR STATUS AT THE ORILLIA RETAIL CENTER Scientific Name SHRUBS Fraxinus latifolia Cytisus scoparius Acer macrophyllum Salix sp. Spirea douglasii Populus trichocarpa HERBS Agrostis alba Agrostis tenuis Aira spp. Cenchrus spp. Eleocharis bolanderi Eleocharis palustris Gnaphalium uliginosum Holcus lanatus Juncus bufonius Juncus acuminatus Juncus effusus Juncus patens Phalaris arundinacea Plantago lanceolata Rumex acetosella Taraxecum officinale Trifolium repens Common Name Oregon ash (sapling) Scot's broom bigleaf maple willow hardhack black cottonwood Redtop bentgrass Colonial bentgrass Hairgrass Bur -grass Bolander's spike -rush Spike rush Marsh cudweed Velvet grass Toad rush Tapered rush Soft rush Spreading rush Reed canarygrass English plantain Sour dock dandelion red clover Indicator Status* FACW (unrated)* FACU FACW FACW FAC FACW (unrated)* (unrated)* (unrated)* FACW OBL (unrated)* FAC (unrated)* OBL FACW FACW FACW FACU+ (unrated)* FACU FACU *Species with no indicator status are assumed to be FACU or U species. APPENDIX C ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ' Following is a list of Elements of the Environment as set forth in the Washington Administrative Code. Items marked "Discussed" are discussed in this document, on pages specified in the Table. of Contents. Items marked "Not Discussed" have impacts deemed to be non - significant, for reasons briefly stated thereafter. 1. Natural Environment a. Earth i. Geology Not discussed; although filled, no unusual conditions exist on these sites. ii. Soils Not discussed; no unusual conditions exist on these sites. iii. Topography Not discussed; no unusual conditions exist on these sites. iv. Unique Physical Features Not discussed; no unique physical features exist on these sites. v. Erosion /Enlargement of Not discussed; erosion would Land Area (Accretion) not be significant. b. Air i. Air Quality ii. Odor iii. Climate Not discussed; emissions from development would not be significant. Not discussed; emissions from development not expected to generate significant odor. Not discussed; development would not result in significant impact. c. Water i. Surface Water Movement/ Quantity /Quality ii. Runoff /Absorption iii. Floods iv. Groundwater Movement/ Quantity /Quality v. Public Water Supplies d. Plants and Animals i. Habitat for and Numbers or Diversity of Species of Plants, Fish or other Wildlife ii. Unique Species iii. Fish or Wildlife Migration Routes e. Energy and Natural Resources i. Amount Required /Rate of Use /Efficiency ii. Source /Availability iii. Nonrenewable Resources iv. Conservation and Renewable Resources v. Scenic Resources C -2 Discussed. See Stormwater. Discussed. See Stormwater. Discussed. See Stormwater. Not discussed; not applicable to this site. Not discussed; water consumption of proposal expected to have no significant impact on overall supply. Discussed. Not discussed; none exist on site. Not discussed; no known migra- tion routes associated with any sites. Discussed; discussed under natural gas and electricity. Not discussed; energy requirements would have insignificant effect on overall supplies. Not discussed; the only consumption of nonrenewable resources could be for building materials and energy requirements. Discussed; discussed under natural gas and electricity. Not discussed; development not expected to impact identified scenic resources. 2. Built Environment a. Environmental Health i. Noise ii. Risk of Explosion iii. Releases or Potential Releases to the Environment Affecting Public Health, such as Toxic or Hazardous Materials b. Land and Shoreline Use i. Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans and to Estimated Population ii. Housing iii. Light and Glare iv. Aesthetics v. Recreation vi. Historic and Cultural Preservation vii. Agricultural Crops c. Transportation i. Transportation Systems ii. Vehicular Traffic iii. Waterborne, Rail and Air Traffic iv. Parking C -3 Not discussed; noise effects not expected to be significant. Not discussed; risk of explosion not expected to be significant. Not discussed; proposal involves no known hazard in this area. Discussed. Not discussed; proposal has no significant impact on housing. Not discussed; potential increase in light and glare determined to be non - significant. Not discussed. Development not expected to impact identified scenic resources. Discussed. See Parks or Other Recreation Facilities. Not discussed; no affected historic or cultural resources have been identified. Not discussed; no agricultural uses exist in immediate project vicinity. Discussed. Discussed. Discussed. Not discussed; parking requirements would be subject to review of development proposal. v. Movement /Circulation of Not discussed; proposal would not People or Goods have significant impact on movement /circulation of people or goods. vi. Traffic Hazards Not discussed; potential hazards would be examined as part of review of specific development proposal. d. Public Services and Utilities i. Fire Discussed. ii. Police Discussed. , iii. Schools Not discussed; no increase in school population is anticipated to result from development of this project. iv. Parks or Other Recreational Discussed. APPENDIX D DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Environmental Protection Agency Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Energy Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service State Governor's Office Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Wildlife Department of Transportation Department of Social and Health Services Ecological Commission Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington Regional Metro - Water Quality Division Metro - Transit Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Puget Sound Council of Governments Seattle - King County Department of Public Health Local Government King County Department of Public Works King County Building and Land Development Division King County Planning and Community Development Department King County Soil and Water Conservation District City of Tukwila City of Kent City of Renton Mayor City Council Hearing Examiner's Office Planning Commission Public Works Department Parks and Recreation Department Police Department Fire Department City Attorney SEPA Information Center D -1 APPENDIX D - DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) Utilities /Services Renton School District #403 Puget Sound Power and Light Company Washington Natural Gas Company Pacific Northwest Bell Libraries Renton Public Library - Main Branch (3) Renton Public Library - Highlands Branch (2) University of Washington Library, College of Arch. & Urban Planning King County Public Library System Newspapers Seattle Times Seattle Post - Intelligencer Daily Journal of Commerce Renton Record Chronicle Private Organizations and Others Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce City of Kent Indian Tribal Council Ferguson & Burdell `;. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 June 6, 1988 RONALD G. NELSON Building and Zoning Director City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: ORILLIA RETAIL CENTER REZONE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear Ron: Thank you for including the City of Tukwila in your distribution of this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Our comments are the following: Description of the Proposed Action Figure 1, p.4, or a similar map, should show the existing Comprehensive Plan Map and the proposed amendment. This map or a graphic depiction of the Comprehensive Plan Policies will facilitate reader analysis and grasp of the proposed amendment. Significant Impacts The proposed policy and objectives state that the amendment is to create a "regional commercial area "; however, the DEIS contains no detailed retail market analysis of the impact of this new "area" upon the existing regional retail market in the Green River Valley. This impact is significant and should be included in the DEIS instead of the proximity analysis contained on pages 48. Mitigation of that impact. should be addressed. Traffic impacts and mitigation do not include the traffic mitigation fee proce- dure used for development in the subject area. How much and for what transpor- tation projects is the proposal's mitigation fee used? Off -site mitigation does not include the impacts of and mitigation for the pro- jected traffic to be directed at Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street in 'Tukwila and those intersections with the West Valley Highway. How will the City of Renton and /or the developer mitigate the increased traffic on those streets and intersections? RONALD G. NELSON • June 6, 1988 Page 2 Traffic generation is based upon net leasable square feet. The ITE trip genera- tion manual used to estimate impacts is for gross building area. As a result the projected traffic impact is underestimated by 10 %. The assumption that 30% of the employees will use HOV /TSM facilities and programs is most ambitious for a multiple tenant building. Is this a valid and reaso- nable assumption that is based upon existing experiences of similar other regional shopping center in the Puget Sound area? What is the basis for this assumption and what is the documentation of its success? Economic impacts do not include impacts on other regional shopping centers in the Green River Valley retail market area. A market analysis should be included in the DEIS. Discussion of air quality impacts is not mentioned relative to the increase in traffic beyond that which could be generated by existing Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. This could be a more than moderate impact on the Environment and should be analyzed. If you have any questions about these comments, please call me at 433 -1846. Sincerely,. cc: Gary L. Van Dusen, Mayor LRB /cs. P /RB.6 -6L L. Rick Beeler Planning Director May 16, 1988 0-- City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Mr. Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 RE: Orillia Retail Center Rezone Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ron: Per our conversation of a week ago, I am hereby requesting a two - week extension to the comment period of this DEIS. We appreciate being sent the DEIS and we are reviewing it, but our workload prevents our response by May 18, 1988. A two -week extension is needed and will be very much appreciated. Thank you. Planning Director cc: Mayor 1 • MEMORANDUM To: Beeler /Earnst /File From: Vernon Umetsu RE: Orillia Retail Center Rezone DEIS I. PROPOSED ACTION This is a programmatic EIS on the following amendments: A. Comprehensive Plan Map amendment of 68 acres from Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option to Commercial, and B. Zoning Map amendment of 46 acres from Manufacturing Park (M- P) to Business District (8 -1). The rezoning would allow development of 46 acres as a 1 million NET square foot retail center. This EIS focusses on the impacts of this center as the proposed action, and worst case scenario. II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The purpose, of this EIS is to assess regional and interjurisdictional impacts and required mitigation resulting from the proposed action. A second environmental review would occur based on specific development propol( n s and be limited to local (Renton only) :impacts (per -�taPElei Erickson, Renton, 5/23/88). Note that a second project specific EIS may not be required if the proposed action is substantially the same or a lower impacting alternative as shown in this EIS, and all impacts are mitigated. A mitigated _DNS may be expected on a second SEPA review since the traffic impact mitigation is so significant. III. IMPACTS I have looked at the EIS's Traffic and Ecinomic analyses. Traffic Impacts The traffic impacts specifically due to the proposed action summarized in Table 11 (DEIS:88) are significant. Tukwila is concerned about fully mitigating the need for .increased road capacity along So. lBOth and the Strander overcrossing, just east of West Valley Highway, from 5 lanes to 6 lanes. ICI-e_44 ' a��t�z� jw.Pa,:t ok 115(4wv la . Traffic generation is probably underestimated because the the 1 million net sq. ft., and not the assumed 1.1 million gross sq. ft. (DEIS:13) was used when applying ITE trip • generation tables. ITE trip generation rates use gross square feet. Capacity deficiencies should be recalculated in light of this 10 percent undercounting. Estimated road capacity deficiencies may also be unrealistically conservative since its is based only on straight road segments with capacities of 700 vehicles per hour (vph). No :intersection capacity analyses have been done. Intersections generally have much lower capacities than straight segments and will experience significant capacity reductions as overall traffic volumes increase and make turning movements more difficult. Traffic impacts at the So. 180th /West Valley Hwy. intersection will be '1_significant until the Strander overcrossing is built. fJ°w D. Based on informal discussion with Renton, the following may be expected to be raised in rebuttal: 1. Traffic is a regional problem and Renton roads already carry a significant proportion of through traffic generated in other jurisdictions. It is unfair to ask this Renton development to solve regional traffic problems. 2. Renton is currently programming capital projects such as the 27th/SR 161 interchange which is only serving 50 Z percent of Renton traffic. Asking it to split traffic 0^"I' impact fees is not reasonable. 7. The applicant° objects to funding a Strander �k2, overcrossing; which he perceives as drawing away his market to Southcenter. Igo P. 4. Given a fixed number of consumer trips, the potential • development would reduce traffic at Tukwila intersections by diverting east valley trips to its closer location. Renton would be more than willintj to meet with Tukwila to develop a coordinated impact mitigation process. The City of Tukwila supports the development of HOV /TSM facilities and programs. However, the effectiveness of such programs must be realistically assessed in the SEFA process.. The validity of the admittedly optimistic 30 percent HOV share for employee trips is highly questionable in the absence of specific constraints on employee parking. Constraints on employee parking in order to achieve this HOV share may be so severe as to significantly reduce the market • viability of this project. A 30 percent HOV share would reflect the most successful TSM experience which occurred once in a single occupant building, with a large company (PNB), and severe employee parking restrictions. Duplication of this set of factors in 1.4' a suburban, multi- tenant project is very questionable. No HOV /TSM mitigation should be applied to reduce specific traffic demand calculations unless accompanied by specific TSM actions and enforceable mitigating options in the event of failure to meet projections. The alternative mitigating option should be more specific and enforceable as TSM effectiveness becomes more optimistic. • Economic Impacts Economic analyses have included only impacts on downtown Renton businesses, overall Renton employment, and overall Renton revenues. Since the economic impacts of projects on this-scale are not generally SEPA actionable elements, I suggest we any further analyses of this section. _ so) voJlk )(2 (01‘e- czuer -gay U 1. _LCJ ic c6e-4-P I iq - 2too CO\er-a-it Cc& eocr/ ?e7001c- 4176 - ieeN roiv P.,061A4.,D iv 6-Ls° 0 /k-t;ze 0—e/1-At Q-7-7-V-- /4c, /AG /C r FPM', Vcsa' one UM 6-7S t) GPI Uotrf►- g e. o ? P.- !_=o R_A-C ft c. G y r TH p2 Fes✓ agl L icr C e7\1 -7'02 - w <<--C _ - 5-'67\1 - -- oP 5 ECY(S_ -A-- - co P1` c-An< cam. -t?a co- rroec4_ CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director__ — April 18, 1988 Dear Recipient: AD D., 20 iJ88 1 t____ c" . , ,.�,„... �1�• i- ;�u_; \ , PLANNING L+ i7 j . RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ORILLIA RETAIL CENTER REZONE Attached please find the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a comprehensive plan amendment of 68 acres and a rezone of 46 acres (within the Comprehensive Plan Amendment area) to allow a regional retail commercial center in a portion of the Valley Planning Area. Comments on the draft EIS must be submitted to the Building and Zoning Department by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 18, 1988. Comments postmarked May 18, 1988, will also be accepted. Sincerely, onald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director Deisltr RGN:JSM:cs 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 Lr�!, v 1AP R 20 1988 .j DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE ORILLIA RETAIL CENTER REZONE City of Renton Prepared in Compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1984 Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington SEPA Rules, Effective April 4, 1984 Chapter 197 -11, Washington Administrative Code City of Renton Ordinance 3891 Date of Issue: April 18, 1988 Title and Description Project Location FACT SHEET The Proposed Action is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a request for a zone reclassification (rezone) for a portion of the Valley Planning Area in the City of Renton. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone is to encourage and enable development of regional retail commercial uses (Orillia Retail Center) in the southeast portion of the Valley Planning Area. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment would establish new regional commercial policies and would amend the Comprehen- sive Plan map from Manufacturing Park/ Multiple Option to Commercial. The rezone is for a change from Manufacturing Park (M -P) to Business District (B -1). Various conceptual development scenarios and design configurations have been created to illustrate the development that could occur under the Proposed Action and alternatives. Two development scenarios are identified: one is a one million square foot regional retail center comprised of a set of clusters; the other is a mall -like structure of comparable size. One conceptual development alternative examines a mall -like structure of approximately 650,000 square feet. Another alternative examines implementation of the rezone but not the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with conceptual development allowing a wide variety of commercial uses. The No Action Alternative retains the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and is illustrated by the develoment of a 1.5 million square foot office complex. The proposal is located in the southeast portion of the Valley Planning Area as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment area of approximately 68 acres is located east of Lind Avenue Southwest, south of Southwest 34th Street, west of the East Valley Freeway (SR -167) and generally north of Southwest 41st Street (the existing Commercial designated land). i Project Location (continued) Action Sponsor Approximate Date of Implementation Lead Agency Responsible Official and Contact Person for Questions Comments and Information Licenses, Permits and Approvals Authors and Principal Contributors to EIS FACT SHEET (continued) The rezone proposal area consists of approximately 46 acres, and is a smaller area within the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area. The rezone proposal is bounded by Lind Avenue Southwest, Southwest 34th Street, East Valley Road, and Southwest 41st Street, except for a portion of the southwest corner of the block. Figure 3 shows the area of the proposed rezone. The Sabey Corporation 201 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98119 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone could receive City Council approval by October 15, 1988. City of Renton Department of Building and Zoning Environmental Review Committee John R. Adamson, Program Development Coordinator Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton Washington 98055 Phone: (206) 235 -2620 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared under the direction of the City of Renton, Department of Policy Development, Department of Building and Zoning and Environmental Review Committee. Research and analysis was provided by the following firms: Shapiro and Associates, Inc., Environmental Consultants - Glenn Bachman, Pam Bredouw, David McDowell, Pam Baron, Mike Thies, Susan Killen William E. Popp, Associates, Transportation Consultants - William Popp, Maria Cain ii Authors and Principal Contributors to EIS (continued) FACT SHEET (continued) Conger & Clark, Inc. Market Analysts - Kevin Clarke Baylis, Brand, Wagner Architects, Design Consultant Location of Background Data City of Renton Department of Policy Development and Department of Building and Zoning Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Date of Issue of the Draft EIS Date Comments Due Shapiro and Associates, Inc. Suite 1812, The Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 624 -9190 April 18, 1988 May 18, 1988 Public Hearing May 18, 1988 Approximate Date of Final Action by Lead Agency Cost of Document to Public July 25, 1988 $5.00 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Fact Sheet, i Table of Contents v List of Figures ix List of Tables x SUMMARY xi Section I INTRODUCTION 1 Section II DESCRIPTION OF THE THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 3 A. Introduction 3 1. Project Sponsor 3 2. Project Location 3 3. Proposal Objectives 3 4. Proposed Action and Alternatives 7 B. Proposed Action 8 1. The Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 8 a. Background on the Existing Comprehen- 8 sive Plan and the Proposed Admendment b. General Goals, Objectives, and Policies 9 c. Green River Valley Policy Plan 10 2. Rezone to B -1 11 3. Description of Development Scenarios 12 Under the Proposed Action a. Development Scenario "A" 14 b. Development Scenario "B" 16 C. Alternative 1: No Action 18 1. Background 18 2. Description of Development Scenario 20 Under "No Action" D. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development 1. Background 2. Description of Development Scenario Under Alternative 2 E. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail °23 Commercial Development 1. Background 2. Description of Development Scenario Under Alternative 3 v 21 21 21 23 23 Section III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND 25 MITIGATION MEASURES A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 25 1. Affected Environment 25 a. Introduction 25 b. City of Renton Comprehensive 27 Plan (Compendium, March 1986) c. History of Formal Considerations 28 of Commerical Comprehensive Plan Designation in the Valley Planning Area 2. Significant Impacts 29 a. Proposed Action 30 b. Alternative 1: .No Action 31 c. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, 31 No Planned Development d. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail 31 Commercial Development 3. Relationship of the Proposed Comprehensive 31 Plan Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies 4. Mitigation Measures 45 B. Land Use - A Discussion of Planning Area Land Use 47 Trends, Zone Classifications and Development Scenarios 1. Affected Environment 47 a. Retail Centers 47 b. Historical Development in the 49 Green River Valley Planning Area c. Existing Land Use 49 d. Existing Zoning 52 2. Significant Impacts 54 a. Impacts of the Proposed Rezone to B -1 59 (Business District) and of No Rezone b. Physical Development Impacts of the 60 Conceptual Development Scenarios 3. Mitigation Measures 62 C. Aesthetics 65 1. Affected Environment 65 2. Significant Impacts 69 a. Proposed Action 69 b. Alternative 1: No Action 70 c. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, 71 No Planned Development d. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail 71 Commercial Development 3. Mitigation Measures 72 vi D. Transportation 73 1. Affected Environment 73 a. Street System 73 b. Traffic Volume and Level -of- Service 75 c. Valley Transportation Improvements Program 75 d. Pedestrian Circulation 75 e. Bicycle Facilities 78 f. Railroad Facilities 78 2. Significant Impacts 78 a. All Alternatives 78 b. Proposed Action 84 c. Alternative 1: No Action 84 d. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, 84 No Planned Development e. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail 85 Commercial Development 3. Mitigation Measures 87 a. Off -Site Improvements 87 B. Transportation System Management 87 E. Water Resources 91 1. Affected Environment 91 a. Surface Water 91 b. Floods /Runoff and Absorption 91 c. Water Quality 95 d. Wetlands and Habitat 96 2. Significant Impacts 97 a. Proposed Action 98 b. Alternative 1: No Action 100 c. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, 101 No Planned Development d. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail 101 Commercial Development 3. Mitigation Measures 101 a. Control of Construction - Related Water 102 Quality Impacts b. Permanent Stormwater and Drainage 102 Improvements F. Utilities 105 1. Water 105 a. Affected Environment 105 b. Significant Impacts 105 c. Mitigation Measures 111 2. Sanitary Sewer 111 a. Affected Environment 111 b. Significant Impacts 112 c. Mitigation Measures 114 3. Natural Gas 114 a. Affected Environment 114 b. Significant Impacts 115 c. Mitigation Measures 115 4. Electricity a. Affected Environment b. Significant Impacts c. Mitigation Measures 116 116 116 117 G. Public Services 119 1. Fire Protection 119 a. Affected Environment 119 b. Significant Impacts 120 c. Mitigation Measures 122 2. Police Protection 122 a. Affected Environment 122 b. Significant Impacts 123 c. Mitigation Measures 125 3. Parks and Recreation Facilities 125 a. Affected Environment 125 b. Significant Impacts 129 c. Mitigation Measures 129 H. Economics 131 1. Affected Environment 131 a. Employment 131 b. Municipal Expenditures and Revenues 133 2. Significant Impacts 134 a. Proposed Action 134 b. Alternative 1: No Action 135 c. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, 137 No Planned Development d. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail 139 Commercial Development 3. Mitigation Measures 139 APPENDICES A. Distribution List B. Elements of the Environment C. References and Bibliography D. Traffic Study E. Fiscal Impact Analysis F. Excerpts from the Renton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance viii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Vicinity Map 4 Figure 2 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Area 5 Figure 3 Proposed Rezone Area 6 Figure 4 Proposed Action: Development Scenario "A" 15 Figure 5 Proposed Action: Development Scenario "B" 17 Figure 6 Alternative 1: No Action 19 Figure 7 Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1 22 Figure 8 Existing Comprehensive Plan Designations 26 Figure 9 Land Use Distribution in the Valley Planning Area 50 Figure 10 Existing Land Use 51 Figure 11 Existing Zoning 53 Figure 12 View of the Site from the East 66 Figure 13 Views from the Site to the East 67 Figure 14 Examples of Development in the Vicinity of the Site 68 Figure 15 Arterial System 74 Figure 16 Projected Traffic Volumes for the Proposed Action and 81 Alternatives Figure 17 Springbrook Creek Drainage Basin 92 Figure 18 Surface Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed 93 Rezone Site Figure 19 Stormwater Drainage System Features and Boundary of the 94 Drainage Sub -basin of the Proposed Rezone Site Figure 20 Existing Water and Sewer Service 106 Figure 21 Existing Recreation Facilities in the Green River 128 Valley and Talbot Hill /Springbrook Neighborhoods Figure 22 City of Renton Employment 1970 -2000 132 Figure 23 S.E. Renton /Renton Industrial Area Employment 132 Figure 24 1987 City Expenditures by Service Category 133 Figure 25 Municipal Revenues and Expenditures of the Development 138 Scenarios Figure 26 Net Fiscal Impacts of the Development Scenarios 140 ix LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Summary of Actions that Would be Taken Under the Proposed 8 Action and Alternatives Table 2 Summary of Possible Development Under the Proposed 13 Action and Alternatives Table 3 Summary of Allowable Uses in the Manufacturing Park and 55 Business Zones Table 4 Summary of Development Standards in the Manufacturing 56 Park and Business Zones Table 5 Level -of- Service Descriptions 76 Table 6 Recommend Lane Improvements Presented in the Valley 77 Transportation Improvement Program Table 7 Year 2000 Vehicle Trip Generation 79 Table 8 Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service for VTIP and Devel- 82 opment Scenarios Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 9 Year 2000 Summary of Percentage Changes in Traffic 83 Volumes of Development Scenarios under the Proposed Action and Alternatives at Selected Locations Table 10 Shopping Trip Percentages by Center Size 86 Table 11 Recommended Numbers of Lanes to Accommodate Traffic 88 Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 12 Reduction of Single Occupancy Vehicles Under the 90 Proposed Action and Alternatives (30% Target) Table 13 Typical Rates of Water Consumption by Different 107 Commercial User Types Table 14 Summary of Water Consumption Impacts Associated with the 108 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 15 Average Wastewater Generation Rates for Different 112 Types of Users Table 16 Summary of Sanitary Sewer Conveyance and Treatment 113 Requirements Table 17 Estimated Annual Energy Consumption Associated with 116 Development Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 18 Recreational Facilities in the Green River Valley and 127 Talbot Hill /Springbrook Neighborhoods Table 19 Revenues and Expenditures Associated with the Proposed 136 Action and Alternatives x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section provides a summary of the information presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The features of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone (the Proposed Action) and Alternatives are summarized below. Section II of the Draft EIS presents a more detailed description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. Section II also includes descriptions of conceptual development alternatives that illustrate the type of development that could occur under the Proposed Action and each of the Alternatives. Section III of the Draft EIS identifies the impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Action and each of the Alternatives. THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action was generated in response to a request by the Sabey Corporation, which had proposed a rezone of an approximately 46 acre property. The proposed rezone was to allow the development of a regional retail commercial center at the northwest intersection of Southwest 41st Street and East Valley Road. The proposal is designed to fulfill an unsatisfied" demand for regional retail commercial opportunities that currently exist in the South End market area. In response to the request, the City determined that a regional retail center use would not be consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, would require a rezone, as well as the approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Action is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone for a portion of the Valley Planning Area in the City of Renton (see Figure 1). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment includes: . the creation of a regional commercial district objective, which states that a regional center should be located in the Green River Valley in order to take advantage of the retail commercial market opportunity of the broader South End market; . the establishment of ten policies that would guide the development of a regional retail commercial center. Key policies relate to locations proximate to freeway access; unifying architectural themes; provision of regional retail sales and service opportunities and prohibition on strip retail; encouraging pedestrian - oriented amenities, common parking and ample landscaping; providing for site plan review and encouraging design standards, restrictive covenants and contract rezones; and . the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map to redesignate approximately 68 acres from Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option to Commercial (See Figure 1). The rezone would include the redesignation of approximately 46 acres from Manufacturing Park (M -P) to Business District (B -1). xi In order to illustrate the types of environmental impacts that could occur with development under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone, representative development scenarios were created. For the Proposed Action, two conceptual development scenarios were generated. Under the first, a one million (net) square foot, clustered retail commercial center would be constructed on the proposed rezone site. Under the second development scenario the same area of retail commercial development would be located in a mall -type structure. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Under the No Action Alternative the existing Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option Comprehensive Plan policies and designation for the area would be retained as would the existing Manufacturing Park zoning: there would be no Comprehensive Plan Amendment nor rezone. Although a diversity of land uses are allowed under the existing land use policies and zoning, it is likely that the proposed rezone site would develop in office type uses. For the purpose of this EIS, it is assumed that 1.5 million (net) square feet of offices would be developed in clustered buildings throughout the site. ALTERNATIVE 2: REZONE TO B -1, NO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Under this alternative there would be no new Comprehensive Plan text that would establish policies to guide the development of regional retail commercial uses; however, there would be the amendment of the Plan map, redesignating approximately 68 acres of Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option to Commercial. (The area proposed for redesignation would be identical to that identified in the Proposed Action.) In addition, there would be a rezone of approximately 46 acres from M -P to B -1, the same as under the Proposed Action. For illustrative purposes, this alternative assumes that there will be 630,000 (net) square feet of office and 330,000 (net) square feet of retail development. It is likely that the retail businesses would not be of a regional retail commercial variety, and would be developed incrementally on the site. ALTERNATIVE 3: SMALLER RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Alternative 3 would be similar to the Proposed Action with respect to the Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments. However, under Alternative 3, the retail commercial center would be at a smaller scale, encompassing 650,000 (net) square feet. COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table ES -1 presents a matrix that compares the environmental impacts that could occur with development under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. The comparison highlights those impacts that could occur under the conceptual development scenarios, which are designed to xii illustrate likely development. Actual impacts would be dependent upon the specific uses that would locate on the site. MITIGATION The proposed regional retail commercial policies have incorporated language that is intended to reduce or• eliminate many of the adverse environmental impacts that could occur with the development of these types of uses. These policies include the prohibition on strip commercial development type uses and the inclusion of policies intended to encourage unifying design themes, landscaping pedestrian- oriented amenities, and the sharing of parking facilities. The policies also require site plan review and encourage the use of contract rezones and restrictive covenants to ensure that project implementation and operation is consistent with the City's intent. Additional measures could be considered to further reduce or eliminate environmental impacts. Such measures could include the development of regional commercial center guidelines that would provide a framework for considering project features; and the creation of a design review committee that would examine the architectural elements of any proposed regional retail commercial development. It is important to note that any development on the proposed rezone site could incorporate specific mitigation measures to alleviate adverse impacts. Such measures could include (proportional) assistance to the City in funding improvements to the infrastructure (e.g. roads, water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, parks, etc.) or the incorporation of mitigation into the project design to reduce infrastructure improvement demands (e.g. on -site recreation facilities, energy- efficiency modifications and design, water - conserving features, etc.). Specific measures are better identified with project- specific plans and designs that would be prepared following the Council's disposition of the Proposed Action. Alternative Element of the Environment TABLE ES -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives THE PROPOSED ACTION . Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment . Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment . Rezone Development Development Scenario "A" Scenario "A" . clustered . mall development structure ALTERNATIVE 1 . no Comprehensive Plan Amendment . no Rezone . clustered development ALTERNATIVE 2 . no Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment . Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment . Rezone . distributed development ALTERNATIVE 3 . Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment . Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment . Rezone . mall structure LAND USE . establishes new regional retail commercial policies . redesignation of @ 68 acres from Manufacturing Park/ Multiple Option to Commercial . rezone of approximately 46 acres from Manufacturing Park to Business District . three clusters of buildings could develop on proposed rezone site . 1,000,000 square feet of regional retail commercial use could develop on site . establishes new regional retail commercial policies . redesignation of @ 68 acres from Manufacturing Park/ Multiple Option to Commercial . rezone of approximately 46 acres from Manufacturing Park to Business District . mall structure could develop on proposed rezone site . 1,000,000 square feet of regional retail commercial use could develop on site . no regional retail commercial policies . no Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment . no rezone . office building complex could develop on site . 1,500,000 square feet of office use could develop on the site; although manufacturing uses also are allowed . no regional retail commercial policies . redesignation of @ 68 acres from Manufac- turing Park /Multiple Option to Commercial . rezone of approximately 46 acres from Manufacturing Park to Business District . office /retail buildings could be distributed on site . uncoordinated mix of 300,000 square feet of unrelated retail commercial, 570,000 square feet of office uses could develop on site . establishes new regional retail commercial policies . redesignation of @ 68 acres from Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option to Commercial . rezone of approximately 46 acres from Manufacturing Park to Business District . mall structure could develop on proposed rezone site . 650,000 square feet of regional retail commercial use could develop on site Element of the Environment TABLE ES -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives THE PROPOSED ACTION Development Scenario "A" Development Scenario "A" ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 AESTHETICS . likely that new or expanded regional retail commercial center would not develop outside proposed rezone site in market area . may be pressures to rezone nearby areas . requirement for unifying architectural themes, pedestrian- oriented amenities, and site plan review; and encouragement of covenants and contract rezones offers means to control aesthetic qualities of development . creative site planning potential between buildings . likely that new or expanded regional retail commercial center would not develop outside proposed rezone site in market area . may be pressures to rezone nearby areas . pedestrian - oriented amenities and site plan review; and encouragement of covenants and contract rezones offers means to control aesthetic qualities of development . appearance of site could be affected by expanse of parking . probable that new or expanded regional retail commercial center would develop outside proposed rezone site in market area . site plan review offers means to control aesthetic qualities of development . creative site planning potential between buildings . likely that new or expanded regional retail commercial center would not develop outside proposed rezone site in market area . may be pressures to rezone nearby areas . probable that demand for regional retail commercial development would not be entirely satisfied; demand for development of additional retail commercial use outside proposed rezone site in market area could persist . may be pressures to rezone nearby areas . Pedestrian - oriented . requirement for . amenities site plan unifying review; and archetectural encouragement of themes, covenants and pedestrian - contract rezones oriented amenities offers means to site plan review; control aesthetic and encouragement qualities. Site plan of covenants and review would apply contract rezones only to buildings in offers means to excess of 4000 square . control aesthetic feet and probably qualities of would not apply for development entire site. . limited opportunity for unifying site plan elements . appearance of site could be affected by expanse of parking Element of the Environment TABLE ES -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives THE PROPOSED ACTION Development Scenario "A" Development Scenario "A" ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 . buildings could range from 20 -50 feet in height . 7 % -8% of site required by zoning to be landscaped . views of site from vantage points on the eastern slope of the valley could be affected TRANSPORATATION . 37,100 vehicle trips per day could be generated . decrease in Level -of- Service on 7 road segments in Valley Area of Renton LOS- Lind Avenue South 34th - 41st = F 41st - 43rd = F . buildings could range from 20 -60 feet in height . 7 % -8% of site required by zoning to be landscaped . views of site from vantage points on the eastern slope of the valley could be affected . buildings could range from 45 -150 feet in height . 11 % -12% of site required by zoning to be landscaped . views of site from vantage points on the eastern slope of the valley could be affected - greater heights could result in greater visual prominence . 37,100 vehicle trips . 16,350 vehicle per day could be trips per day generated could be generated . decrease in Level - of- Service on 7 road segments in Valley Area of Renton F . decrease in Level -of- Service on 8 road segments in Valley Area of Renton E D . building heights could vary . 7 % -8% of site required by zoning to be landscaped . views of site from vantage points on the eastern slope of the valley could be affected - development could resemble existing uncoordinated visual mix area . 23,300 vehicle trips per day could be generated . decrease in Level -of- Service on 9 road segments in Valley Area of Renton F F . building heights could be less than 35 feet . 7 % -8% of site required by zoning to be landscaped . views of site from vantage points on the eastern slope of the valley could be affected; however, to a lesser extent than Development Scenario B . 24,180 vehicle trips per day could be generated . decrease in Level - of- Service on 4 road segments in Valley Area of Renton F F Element of the Environment TABLE ES -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives. THE PROPOSED ACTION Development Scenario "A" Development Scenario "A" ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 STORM WATER CONTROL East Valley Road 27th - 34th = B 34th - 41st = F 41st - 43rd = F S.W. 43rd = F . railroad spurs on site could require removal; alternate rail access for properties to north of site could be provided . bicycle traffic could increase . pedestrian traffic could increase; pedestrian amenities could be provided on -site . zoning allows maximum of 92% impervious surface coverage . approximately 68,000 cubic feet of on -site detention could be required B F F F . railroad spurs on site could require removal; alternate rail access for properties to north of site could be provided . bicycle traffic could increase . pedestrian traffic could increase; pedestrian amenities could be provided on -site . zoning allows maximum of 92% impervious surface coverage . approximately 68,000 cubic feet of on -site detention could be required c E D F . railroad spurs on site could require removal; alternate rail access for properties to north of site could be provided . bicycle traffic could increase . pedestrian traffic could increase C F F F . railroad spurs on site could require removal; alternate rail access for properties to north of site could be provided . bicycle traffic could increase . pedestrian traffic could increase . zoning allows . zoning allows • maximum of 88% maximum of 92% impervious surface impervious coverage surface coverage . approximately 65,000 cubic feet on -site detention could be required . approximately 65,000 cubic feet of on -site detention could be required B F F F . railroad spurs on site could require removal; alternate rail access for properties to . north of site could be provided . bicycle traffic could increase . pedestrian traffic could increase; pedestrian amenities could be provided on -site . zoning allows maximum of 92% impervious surface coverage . approximately 68,000 cubic feet of on -site detention could be required Element of the Environment TABLE ES -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives THE PROPOSED ACTION Development Scenario "A" Development Scenario "A" ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 UTILITIES - Water - Sanitary Sewer x - - Electric J . PUBLIC SERVICES - Fire . approximately 166,500 gallons /day water could be consumed by uses . sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment requirements comparable to water consumption . approximately 23.3 million KWH per year of electricity could be consumed by anticipated uses . Potential for increased emergency vehicle response time. Possible increased fire potential and firefighting obstruction during construction. . approximately 166,500 gallons /day water could be consumed by uses . sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment requirements comparable to water consumption . approximately 23.3 million KWH per year of electricity could be consumed by anticipated uses . Reduced potential for emergency vehicle conflict due to distinct circulation; continuous nature of mall building could result in greater difficulty for containing fire. . approximately 140,300 gallons /day water could be consumed by uses . sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment requirements comparable to water consumption . approximately 27.2 million KWH per year of electricity could be consumed by anticipated uses . Incidence of injury /accidents could be higher under industrial development, possibly requiring more specialized firefighting equipment. . approximately 102,400 gallons /day water could be consumed by uses . sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment requirements comparable to water consumption . Approximately 17.2 million KWH per year of electricity could be consumed by anticipated uses. . Dispersed mixed use development could result in more traffic congestion and increased emergency response time. . approximately 108,000 gallons /day water could be consumed by uses . sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment requirements comparable to water consumption . approximately 15.1 million KWH per year of electricity could be consumed by anticipated uses . Impacts on fire protection similar to Development Scenario "B," with potentially fewer impacts on fire protection resources. Element of the Environment TABLE ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives THE PROPOSED ACTION Development Scenario "A" Development Scenario "A" ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 - Police x X• - Parks ECONOMICS - Revenues - Expenditures . Greater police protection and patrols required; approximately 4 police officers could have to be added to the Renton Police Department . demand for 4.4 acres of recreation area could occur with development . Total municipal revenues could be approximately $3.955 million, derived mainly through sales taxes. . Total municipal expenditures could be approximately 5337,000. . 2,220 new jobs could be created. . Impacts similar to Development Scenario "A," with increased potential for parking lot crime . demand for 4.4 acres of recreation area could occur with development . Total municipal revenues could be • approximately $3.955 million, derived mainly through sales taxes. . Total municipal expenditures could be approximately 5337,000. . 2,220 new jobs could be created. . Least impact on crime rate of all alternatives . demand for 13.4 acres of recreation area could occur with development . Total municipal revenues could be approximately S1.540 million generated primarily by property taxes. . Total municipal expenditures could be approximately S150,000. . Impacts could be greatest of alternatives, particularly if convenience retail develops. . demand for 6.4 acres of recreation area could occur with development - Total municipal revenues could be approximately $1.770 million contributed primarily by property tax (45 %) and sales tax (40 %). . Total municipal expenditures could be approximately $182,000. . 6,680 new jobs . 3,180 new jobs could could be created be created . Impacts on crime similar to Development Scenario "B "; however, proportionately less because of smaller scale of development - 3 police officers could have to be added to Renton Police Department . demand for 2.9 acres of recreation area could occur with development . Total municipal revenues could be approximately $2.509 million contributed primarily by sales tax (60 %) and property tax (34 %) . . Total municipal expenditures could be approximately $337,000. . 1,440 jobs could be created. TABLE ES -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1 Element Development Development of the Scenario "A" Scenario "A" Environment ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 . Retail center could pose limited competition to downtown Renton businesses x x . Retail center could pose limited competition to downtown Renton businesses . development expected to have no impact on downtown retail business . any retail development expected to have negligible impact on downtown business . Retail center could pose limited competition to downtown Renton businesses I. Introduction I. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a programmatic EIS that evaluates the impacts of amending the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (including a map change encompassing approximately '68 acres) and rezoning an area of the Green River Valley Planning Area. The purpose of these actions is to establish the policy base and zoning that would allow the development of a regional retail commercial center. This EIS also analyzes the probable impacts that could result as a consequence of identified development scenarios for the proposed site, which is located on an approximately 46 acre parcel (the proposed rezone site) northwest of the intersection of East Valley Road and S.W. 41st Street. The development scenarios for a proposed retail center are schematic at this time. In order to develop this parcel, a detailed site development plan would be submitted by the applicant to the City. This application and review would occur at a later date. As part of the site plan review process prior to issuance of development permits, final decisions about site requirements and conditions would be made. This Draft EIS is comprised of three primary chapters and a set of Appendices that provide more detailed information on key topics. Section I of this Draft EIS is this Introduction. Section II of this EIS contains a statement of the proposal's objectives, detailed descriptions of the proposed action and alternatives, including the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan text and land use map. Section II also describes the different types of development that could occur under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone and its alternatives. Section III of this Draft EIS describes the possible impacts and mitigation measures that could occur with approval of the Proposed Action or alterna- tives. The first chapter of the section examines the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and particularly its relationship to adopted policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Also included in the first chapter is a historic overview of the consideration of retail commercial development policies in the Green River Valley Planning Area. The following chapters in Section III focus on the rezone and how the conceptual development scenarios under the Proposed Action and alternatives could impact land use, aesthetics, transportation, water resources, public services and utilities, employment, and municipal costs and revenues. Each chapter also identifies mitigation measures that could reduce or eliminate the identified environ- mental impacts. Technical reports have been prepared and are appended to the Draft EIS. These reports address Transportation and Fiscal Impacts. In order to facilitate consideration of the proposed policies, excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are appended. 1 II. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES This section is organized into five chapters. The first chapter identifies the project sponsor, the project location and states the proposal's objectives and introduces the Proposed Action and Alternatives, including a comparison of the key actions that would be undertaken under each. The remaining four chapters describe, in detail, the Proposed Action and the Alternatives. A. INTRODUCTION The proposal is the approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zone reclassification (rezone) for a portion of the Green River Valley Planning Area in the City of Renton. PROJECT SPONSOR The proposed project was initiated by a rezone request from the Sabey Corporation, representing Glacier Park and themselves. The rezone was intended to provide the zoning basis for the development of a regional retail commercial center. The City responded to the request by proceeding with consideration of both the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone proposal, which would facilitate development of a regional retail commercial center. The Sabey Corporation, in coordination with the City, is identified as the "action sponsor" for this programmatic (non - project) Environmental Impact Statement. PROJECT LOCATION The proposal is located in the southeast portion of the Green River Valley Planning Area (Valley Planning Area) as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area, which encompasses approximately 68 acres, is located east of Lind Avenue S.W., south of S.W. 34th Street, west of the East Valley Freeway (SR -167) and generally north of S.W. 41st Street (the existing Commercial designated land). The proposed rezone area, which is smaller than the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area, consists of approximately 46 acres bounded on the west by Lind Avenue S.W., on the north by S.W. 34th Street, on the east by East Valley Road, and on the south by S.W. 41st Street, except for a portion of the southwest corner of the block. Figure 3 illustrates the requested rezone area. PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to allow and to encourage development of regional retail uses in the southeast portion of the Valley Planning Area of Renton, as shown in Figure 2. The regional retail uses would serve the South End market, which encompasses an area generally bounded by I -5 on the west, May Valley Road on the north, 196th Avenue Southeast on the east, and the Auburn Municipal Golf Course on the south (Clarke, 1988). 3 G PROPOSED .REZONE SITE 0 1 S x/4361 SL S. 1130th St Kent PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AREA c, 0 st. Figure 1 Vicinity Map City of Renton LEGEND P -1 P -1 CHANNEL PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BOUNDARY �, PROPOSED REAONE AREA 0 1500 3000 Scale in Feet SHAPI T 4 e4' SW 34th St. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL 1 1 1 1 1 J..L •• • • • • • • • • • '1h'1«iielF3 0 SW 41st St. ••. 4 , • �i•■••i ∎iii iei■•• i ■i i■••./.•••••i■•••••./.••••■i / ∎%••• •• City Limits if City of Kent Figure 2 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Area City of Renton 0 300 600 Scale in Feet Si iAPI O& Asses 5 SW 34th St. JI PROPOSED! B -1 ZONE dk- ot- .Lit,/ /..:✓. --------- - - - - -- City Limits � � City of Kent Figure 3 Proposed Rezone Area City of Renton 0 300 600 Scale in Feet SI lAI'll'.)6. , sso7ATES., The objective of the proposed rezone is to implement the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment by permitting regionally- oriented retail development in a portion of the Valley Planning Area of Renton, as shown in Figure 3. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The purpose of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone is to allow and encourage development of regional commercial uses in the southeast portion of the Green River Valley Planning Area. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment would: . establish new regional commercial policies for the City; . amend specific commercial policies for the Green River Valley Planning area; and . amend the Comprehensive Plan Map in the Green River Valley Planning Area from Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option (MP /MO) to Commercial. The rezone proposal is for a change from Manufacturing Park (M -P) to Business district (B -1), which would be initiated to implement the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. In the City of Renton, all amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must be initiated by the City Council through the Mayor. The Comprehensive Plan is a policy document, with zoning the means by which the Comprehensive Plan is adapted to programmed land use. A typical rezone request may be applied for by a property owner and the City must process the application (as long as it is complete, timely, etc.). The Hearing Examiner may approve or deny the rezone request based on criteria established in City ordinances. If a rezone application is denied, or if the property owners believe it could be denied because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and , does not meet established criteria, then they may apply for a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Unlike rezones, the private Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not automatically processed by a City Department. Rather, the application is forwarded directly to Council and they decide if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment review process should be initiated and, if so, with what priority. Under a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone request the Planning Commission will hear the proposal and forward this recommendation to City Council for their action. City planners, as a result of the request from the Sabey Corporation, were directed by the Council and Mayor to assemble a Comprehensive Plan Amendment package. Upon approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone, a regional retail commercial development proposal could be formally initiated through the site plan review process. The City of Renton's site plan review process would examine such design elements as curb cut locations, circulation patterns, landscaping plans, exterior lighting, architectural materials, stormwater drainage control and utilities plans, building location and square footage, etc. 7 The descriptions of the Proposed Action and alternatives in this EIS comply with the intent of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) by illustrating a range of options for decision - makers. Since the Proposed Action is programmatic, two examples of likely development outcomes are described in order to illustrate probable impacts that could result from implementation of the action. In addition, alternatives have been designed to describe the likely impacts of no action" (Alternative 1), a "higher intensity" alternative to the proposal (Alternative 2), and a "lower intensity" alternative (Alternative 3). Table 1 illustrates a summary of the actions that could be taken under each of the four alternatives. Table 1 SUMMARY OF ACTIONS THAT WOULD BE TAKEN UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Alternative 3: Smaller -Scale Proposed Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Retail Action No Action Rezone to B -1 Development Comprehensive Plan Amendment . New policies yes no no yes . Map change yes no yes yes Rezone yes no yes yes Physical Development yes yes yes yes Likely Site Plan Review yes yes yes* yes Although a formal site plan review of a unified development probably would not be conducted, the City would review the individual proposals that are submitted. B. PROPOSED ACTION THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Background on the Existing Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Amendment The City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan consists of several elements including Policies, Land Use, Circulation, and Community Facilities. The purposes of the Comprehensive Plan are to define and establish policies relating to the development of the community as a whole; to indicate the principles and objectives that shall guide the establishment, development, and implementation of definite and precise public and private plans; to provide for the coordination of the many separate plans that govern the 8 development of the community; and to officially adopt a program and guide that will enable the City of Renton to attain the principles and objectives set forth in Section 35.63 of the Revised Code of Washington. The Comprehensive Plan is divided into two primary sections: a general policy element followed by elements for the subregional areas of the City. Each element is composed of goals, objectives, and policies. A goal is defined as a general aim or desired end - -a broad, long -range purpose toward which policy, decisions and action are directed. An objective is a specific purpose, product, or performance level - -an intermediate level of achievement that, in conjunction with a set of objectives, allows one to attain a given goal. A policy is a specific or detailed statement of intent and the actions to be taken to attain a given objective. The proposed amendment to the March 1986 Compendium of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan would establish a new regional commercial objective and policies, and would amend specific policies that pertain to the Valley Planning Area. The General Goals, Objectives and Policies section (adopted February 23, 1981), is found between pages 8 and 26 of the Comprehensive Plan; the Green River Valley Policy Plan, which includes an area - specific set of policies of the Comprehensive Plan, is found between pages 31 and 50. The proposed policies, which are cited below, include language intended to ensure that suitable design and locational policies are applied to regional retail commercial developments. These development standards are further intended to ensure the compatibility of regional retail commercial developments with surrounding land uses and other commercial developments in the area. Consistent with the proposed regional retail commercial objective and policies, the Comprehensive Plan Map would be revised to expand the commercial designation located in the southeast part of the Valley Planning Area. The draft text of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (presented at a workshop of the Renton Planning Commission on September 9, 1987) with minor revisions is detailed below. (NOTE: For purposes of the draft, underlines (x) are used for added text; overstrikes (x) are used for deletions; and unmarked lines denote existing text.) General Goals, Objectives, and Policies (The City's Commercial Goal, on page 16 of the Comprehensive Plan, would not be revised): POLICIES ELEMENT V. COMMERCIAL GOAL: TO PROMOTE ATTRACTIVE, CONVENIENT, VIABLE SYSTEMS OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES The Commercial area's objectives (A. through E.) on page 16 -18 of the Comprehensive Plan, would not be revised. A new 9 objective (F.) would be added to page 18, together with the following new proposed regional commercial policies: F. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE: A regional commercial area should be located in the Green River Valley and should provide a node of retail services and sales opportunities to take advantage of the broader South End market. POLICIES: 1. A regional commercial area should be located within easy access of a freeway and at the intersection of two arterials. 2. A regional commercial area should be developed with a single theme and with a central focus. 3. A regional commercial area shall not include strip retail components. 4. A regional commercial area should predominantly provide those sales and service opportunities which are oriented to a broader regional market and should strictly limit retail activities which are better suited to neighborhood commercial areas. 5. Pedestrian oriented amenities should be encouraged. 6. Common parking facilities should be constructed. 7. Ample landscaping should be provided throughout the site, including along property lines, to provide a pleasant environment, minimize the impact of development and enhance the visual experience from adjacent properties. 8. Site plan review should be required for regional commercial development. 9. Design standards or restrictive covenants executed between property owners and subsequent tenants or purchasers should be encouraged. 10. A contract rezone should be used wherever feasible to establish time limits and conditions for development. Green River Valley Policy Plan Wording would be added to page 46 of the Comprehensive Plan, under the Commercial definition and location policies for the Valley: 10 13. LAND USE Commercial . An area intended for retail activities, shopping centers, office uses, personal and professional service activities, non - industrial wholesale, mixed commercial /residential uses, and similar compatible uses. The intensity and scale of commercial uses permitted in the Central Business District, adjacent to major arterials and near other non - residential uses, should be greater than the scale of commercial activity permitted near more sensitive land uses. . A regional commercial area should be located in the Green River Valley and should provide a node of retail services, businesses, and professional services, and sales opportunities to take advantage of the broader South End market. The regional commercial area should predominantly provide those sales and service opportunities which are oriented to a broader regional market and should discourage retail activities which are better suited to neighborhood commercial areas. The re ional commercial area should not include stria retai components. Locational Policies . Commercial uses are designated in four locations in the Valley. At the extreme southeast corner of the Valley - -north of S.W. 43rd Street and west of SR 167- - Commercial is designated. This commercial area should extend west to Lind Avenue S.W. and northeasteR1y to S.W. 34th Street. inaldde a14 quadPaRts ef the 4RtePseet4eR ef SW 41st Street and East Vall-ey Read. This area should take advantage of the good exposure and access to provide a range of office, business, service and retail uses. This area should be developed with a node of regional retail commercial uses. No neighborhood or strip commercial activities should be permitted in this regional node. This area is not appropriate for automotive sales or service unless accessory to a primary regional retail commercial use. Policies for the other three locations called out for Commercial use in the Green River Valley Area would remain unchanged under this proposal. REZONE TO B -1 The second element of the Proposed Action is a rezone proposal for that portion of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment area designated as the. proposed "rezone site" (See Figures 2 and 3). The existing zoning designation for 11 the site would be changed from M -P (Manufacturing Park) to B -1 (Business District). The M -P zone allows a wide range of uses from light manufacturing to office park to supportive, "Service Commercial" uses (These uses are identified in Table 3 in Section IIIB., Land Use, below.) However, the M -P zone does not allow development of a regional commercial shopping center. The B -1 zone is the only existing zoning category in the City of Renton that allows retail commercial uses of any type, outright and, therefore, would allow a regional commercial shopping center. The existing provisions of the B -1 zone, however, also allow any type of commercial and retail uses, ranging from fast -food restaurants to car washes to funeral homes as well as residential development. (See Table 3 in Section IIIB., below). DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment text would guide the development of the proposed rezone site, so that a coordinated, large -scale development could occur under the existing B -1 zone. Sufficiently specific development scenarios have been developed as a basis to illustrate the potential environmental impacts that could be associated with development under the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone. Two likely development scenarios are described as part of the Proposed Action: a scheme of several regional -type retail clusters (Development Scenario "A "), and a central regional shopping mall concept (Development Scenario "B "). Table 2 compares key features of these and other possible development scenarios that could occur under the alternative programmatic actions. For analysis purposes, both scenarios anticipate project completion by the year 1995, although project phasing has not yet been determined. Both development scenarios, which are described as possible development actions under the Proposed Action, are retail shopping centers of approxi- ' mately one million square feet of net leasable space. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) defines a shopping center with one million square feet of leasable area as a regional or super - regional center. A regional center provides for general merchandise, apparel, furniture, home furnishings, as well as a range of services and recreational facilities. It typically is built around one or two full -line department stores with the typical size of a center about 400,000 square feet of leasable area. A super - regional center is similar to a regional center; however, it is generally built around at least three major department stores, with the typical size of the center ranging from 750,000 to more than 1,000,000 square feet of leasable area. The retail center development scenarios that illustrate the Proposed Action would be considered super - regional centers according to the ULI definition; however, they are referred to as regional retail commercial centers in this EIS. Certain site amenities and mitigation measures could be incorporated into the conceptual development scenarios. The City would review specific proposed development actions based on the established Comprehensive Plan policies and designation, and zone for the site. When the developer pursues site plan approval, the City may require additional site amenities and 12 - - -! Table 2 • SUMMARY MATRIX OF POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION (All numbers are approximate) Proposed Action Scenario "A" Scenario "B" (clusters) (mall) Alternative 1: Alternative 2: No Action Rezone to B -1 Alternative 3: Smaller -Scale Retail Develop- ment (mall) Building Gross Square Footage(square feet)* Retail 1,100,000 1,100,000 0 330,000 720,000 Office 0 0 1,670,000 630,000. TOTAL 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,670,000 960,000 720,000 Net Leasable 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 870,000 650,000 (square feet)* Building(s) Footprint 750,000 650,000 750,000 400,000 650,000 w (square feet) Building Footprint Coverage* 37% 32% 12% 20% 32% Maximum Impervious Surface Allowed by Zoning ** 92 -93% 92 -93% 88 -89% 92 -93% 92 -93% Comprehensive Plan Commercial Commercial Manufacturing Park/ Commercial Commercial Designation Multiple Option Zoning B -1 8 -1 M -P B -1 B -1 Landscaping Required by Zoning ** 7 -8% 7 -8% 11 -12% 7 -8% 7 -8% Primary External Access Points*** 5 8 7 8 5 Anticipated Employees * * ** 2,220 2,220 6,680 3,180 1,440 * Net leaseable floor area as derived for conceptualizing the development scenarios. Gross area (including leaseable and non - leaseable space) is estimated as 110% of net leaseable area. ** Percentages are estimates based on zoning code regulations. * ** The number of secondary access points has not been determined. Based on calculations in Section IIIH, Economics Chapter. Sources: City Zoning Code, the Sabey Corporation, Shapiro and Associates, Inc. mitigation in order to achieve the following criteria pursuant to the site plan review process: (a) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies; (b) Conformance with existing land use regulations; (c) Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; (d) Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; (e) Conservation of area -wide property values; (f) Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; (g) Provision of adequate light and air; (h) Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; (i) Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and (j) Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. Section III of this Draft EIS identifies relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and discusses the conformance of the Proposed Action and the alternatives with those policies. Development Scenario "A" Development Scenario "A" (see Figure 4), a "decentralized" regional shopping center concept, could consist of three retail clusters distributed on the proposed rezone site. Each cluster could be anchored by a major retail tenant. The northern and southeastern portions of the proposed rezone site could be developed with single- tenant retail commercial structures. There could be approximately five primary, external vehicular access points to the site. Secondary access points and internal roadways patterns could provide vehicular circulation for the cluster. Building scale and location could be designed to: . accommodate a mix of large and small tenants; . provide variety in the size and bulk of buildings on the site; and . create a smooth flow of parking and pedestrian traffic. Site development would be guided at a minimum by the established zoning code development standards. For the 8-1 business district, development standards that would apply include front yard and street setbacks, height restrictions, lot coverage, parking, signs, landscaping, utility and rooftop equipment screening, and storage requirements (see Table 4 in Chapter III.B. below). Building setback requirements vary with the building height. Maximum lot coverage can be up to 75% of the lot provided that parking is 14 provided within the building or within a parking structure. Site develop- ment would include a 10 -foot landscape strip adjacent to all public streets and would have a 2% natural landscape area appropriate for wildlife habitat as described in the Urban Design Policies of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 36 of the Comprehensive Plan). Buildings could be expected to vary in height between 20 feet to 50 feet (1 -4 stories), although the B -1 zone allows building height up to 95 feet. (The maximum height of 95 feet, however, can be exceeded under a conditional use permit.) In general, variations in building bulk, height and setbacks could be used to reduce the sense of building mass and add visual interest to the proposed development. The three retail clusters (illustrated in Figure 4) could have a common architectural theme. The shopping center uses shown separately on the northern and southern portions of the proposed rezone site could be designed in a similar manner to the larger clusters, but could allow variations from a primary design concept in order to accommodate the special needs of free - standing retail users. Amenities could include perimeter landscaping buffers (e.g., berms, trees, ground cover) adjacent to the rights -of -way, varying in width from 10 to 60 feet. As noted above, the B -1 zone requires a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping along public streets, however, landscaping also could be planted in selected areas along the internal street frontage of the retail uses. Building setback and landscaping could be used to discourage, but not restrict, the development of commercial uses that depend upon storefront street visibility and casual shopping associated with strip commercial development. Landscape buffers, islands, and designated areas could be used to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed surface parking areas (as well as any parking structures, if proposed). Pedestrian pathways constructed of special paving patterns and landscape separations from internal streets could connect the retail clusters in the shopping center. Such links could be designed with the intent of encouraging pedestrian movement and to minimize automobile use throughout the proposed rezone site. Pedestrian - oriented amenities would be required and could include such design elements as sculptures, landscaping, weather protection or other features. Specific details of the pedestrian circulation system (e.g., urban design elements, connection to adjacent parcels, and coordination with existing or proposed trail systems) could be determined during the site plan review process. Development Scenario "B" Another possible development scenario of the Proposed Action (Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone) could be a single enclosed mall, anchored at each end by a major tenant (see Figure 5). There could be a minimum of eight primary vehicular access points, and internal circulation could be approximately as illustrated. As with Development Scenario "A ", secondary circulation patterns and external access points for Development Scenario "B" have not yet been determined. 16 Lind Ave S.W. SW 34th St / / 1 1 1 1 1 MALL East Valley Road SW 41st St Figure 5 Proposed Action: Development Scenario "B" City of Renton 0 200 400 Scale in Feet 17 The B -1 zone development standards identified under Scenario "A" also would apply to Scenario "B." The attached buildings could be located in the center of the proposed rezone site and surrounded by landscaping and parking areas and possibly parking structures. The structures could be designed to accommodate a mix of large and small tenants, clustered around and interlinked by a two -story mall. Buildings could vary in height between 20 feet to 60 feet, and could include special architectural elements (e.g., a clock tower, flags, sculptures). Variations in building bulk and massing, materials, height and setbacks could reduce the perception of building mass and could add visual variety to the project. Special design elements at the mall (and major tenant) entrances could be incorporated to emphasize and identify access points. Pedestrian - oriented amenities in the mall could include atriums, fountains, and shopper "sitting" areas. All delivery and service areas could be concentrated and screened by landscaping or solid walls designed to complement the architecture of the buildings. Potential amenities under Development Scenario "B" could include landscape buffering similar to Development Scenario "A." As noted above, the B -1 zone requires a 10 -foot perimeter landscape strip. Special landscaped areas could be used at primary access points and along major interior drives. Additionally, landscaping islands, peninsulas and accent areas could be used to mitigate the visual and surface water runoff impacts of the parking areas as well as parking structures, if proposed, and building structures. Similar to the description of Development Scenario "A," building setback and landscaping could be used to discourage strip commercial development. Sidewalks could be provided from all adjoining streets to the mall and the free - standing buildings illustrated on Figure 5. These could be constructed in special paving patterns and materials and landscaped to give pedestrians a wide, comfortable pathway and clear separation from vehicular traffic. As described above for Development Scenario "A," specific pedestrian circulation and amenities, such as weather protection, could be determined as part of the site plan review process. C. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION This alternative would not include the revised policy wording in the Comprehensive Plan, as described under the Proposed Action. There would be no rezone action; the site would remain zoned M -P. Alternative 1 characterizes likely site development that could occur under the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and the existing zoning. BACKGROUND Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the current Comprehensive Plan designation of Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option (MP /MO) would remain in effect. This designation is intended to allow a broad range of choices in industrial, service commercial, and office uses with special emphasis on "...light industrial with certain compatible heavy industrial, 18 Lind Ave S.W. SW 34th St SW 41st St East Valley Road Figure 6 Alternative 1: No Action City of Renton 0 200 400 Scale in Feet SEUJ'UC& &S OWES 19 commercial and office use located in a park -like setting of high operational and environmental standards." The existing Manufacturing Park (M -P) zone applies specific development standards, including site plan approval, minimum lot size, setback specifications, landscaping, and storage, packing and loading controls. The M -P zone requires a 60 -foot setback from all frontage roads, limits height according to the provision of proper setbacks, and allows unlimited site coverage. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO UNDER "NO ACTION" In order to assess the probable impacts of development under this "No Action" alternative, assumptions have been made about likely development. Although the M -P zone allows for many uses (manufacturing and assembly, transportation, communication, and utililty services, service and office [see Table 3 in chapter III.B. below]), current market conditions and real estate values suggest that reasonable development of the proposed rezone site could be an office complex with about 1.5 million square feet of net leaseable space. A possible site development concept plan is illustrated in Figure 6. The site could have seven primary, external vehicular access points. Project completion is assumed for 1995; any phasing included in site development has not been determined. Building scale and location probably could be designed to accommodate a mix of large and small tenants, to have variety in size and bulk of architectural forms, and to create a smooth flow of parking and pedestrian traffic. Limited variations in building bulk, height and setback could be employed to reduce the sense of building mass and add design interest and visual variety to the project. Buildings could vary in height from about 45 feet to 150 feet, with shorter buildings probably located along the site perimeter and taller buildings in the center of the site. Site design could include easy vehicular access and parking areas (parking structures, if necessary). Amenities could include clearly delineated and specially paved pedestrian pathways throughout the project with landscape separation from internal streets. Clustering of buildings could provide special design opportunities for plazas, courtyards and outdoor employee luncheon areas. Such amenities are being required by the City elsewhere in the Valley. As required by code, there would be interior landscaping (e.g., islands and pockets) of approximately 10 feet in width along public streets, and 20 -foot landscape buffers. Landscaping would include areas planted in materials appropriate for wildlife indigenous to the Valley floor. As in the case of the Proposed Action, development under Alternative 1 would require approval under the site plan review process. This process would involve the evaluation of proposed site plans for buildings larger than 4,000 square feet to ensure that the development conforms with the site plan review criteria that are identified under the Proposed Action, above. 20 D. ALTERNATIVE 2: REZONE TO B -1, NO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Alternative 2 is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map from MP /MO to Commercial and a rezone from M -P to B -1. This alternative differs from the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 in that it would not include the proposed regional commercial policies in the Comprehensive Plan. This alternative illustrates the probable impacts of site development under a rezone of the site to Business District (B -1) under existing Comprehensive Plan Policies; it assumes that development would not occur with specific site amenities or mitigation. It could be described as a series of independently developed and managed retail outlets and offices. A possible site development concept of the alternative is illustrated in Figure 7. BACKGROUND The B -1 zone is liberal in terms of the type of land use /business it allows. Development standards that would apply to this alternative include 10 -foot to 30 -foot setbacks depending upon building height, a 95 -foot building height limit, lot coverage, parking, signage, landscaping, utility, storage and refuse facility restrictions. Concerns about development in the B -1 zone include the potential for uncoordinated strip commercial development, minimal setbacks, undesirable aesthetics, drive - through windows, large numbers of curb cuts, and uncoordinated provision of parking. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2 A conceptual Development Scenario for Alternative 2 could consist of 300,000 square feet of net leaseable, unrelated retail commercial development and 570,000 square feet of net leaseable office space (see Figure 7). The proposed rezone site could have nine primary exterior vehicular access points and minimal cohesive internal circulation. There also could be secondary circulation routes and access points under this alternative. Retail uses that could be expected include fast food, auto /boat sales, gas stations, car washes, theaters, grocery stores, and sales of other consumer goods. The overall site could contain an uncoordinated mixture of retail and office uses, in a "worst case" scenario characterized by incremental development, or more clear definition (a harmonious mix) of uses could be established on the site. Completion of development is assumed to be in 1995. No unified architectural design concept for any of the structures is anticipated; there probably would be no coordination of design elements and minimal, if any, selection of compatible materials and colors. Building massing could have little relationship to adjacent buildings or buildings that might have been constructed previously on the proposed rezone site. Landscaping buffers of 10 feet would be provided along all street frontages, as required, to screen adjacent parking areas. Landscaping in the parking areas would be anticipated to be minimal. No coordination of landscape themes, including species selection and sizes, should be anticipated. Because this alternative anticipates development of an uncoordinated nature, it is appropriate to assume that no pedestrian pathways or sidewalks 21 Lind Ave S.W. i • SW 34th St r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i .1. 4 1 1 1 i 1 1 SW 41st St J East Valley Road Figure 7 Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1 City of Renton 0 200 400 N Scale in Feet �- Es 22 would be provided beyond that required by each individual building or building cluster. Pedestrian pathways may only be provided along building entrances and may not provide clear separation from automobiles in the parking areas. Site development would be guided by development standards of the B -1 zone, as identified above. Any development plan for structures greater than 4,000 square feet would be subject to site plan review (the site plan review criteria are identified under the Proposed Action, above). Consequently, many of these concerns probably could be partially resolved on an incre- mental basis. However, the opportunity for entirely mitigating project impacts could be diminished if there is no unified site plan and separate development projects are considered on an incremental basis, and if a portion of the site is exempt from site plan review because it does not meet the threshold criterion. E. ALTERNATIVE 3: SMALLER -SCALE RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT In order to illustrate a full range of development options to decision - makers, as required by SEPA guidelines, this alternative is designed to have "lesser environmental impacts" than the Proposed Action. This alternative consists of a development similar to that described as likely under the Proposed Action, however, at a reduced scale (see Figure 5 for a conceptual site layout illustrating this alternative). BACKGROUND Similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 would include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone. This alternative would be subject to the same revised policy wording of the Comprehensive Plan text and Plan map as described for the Proposed Action. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO UNDER ALTERNATIVE 3 This alternative, as conceptualized, possibly could result in development of the proposed rezone site as a regional shopping mall, with about 650,000 square feet of net leaseable retail space. Similar to Development Scenario "B" of the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 could contain a single, enclosed mall with at least eight primary, external vehicular access points. Internal circulation patterns and secondary access points have not been identified. For purposes of this analysis, this alternative is assumed to be completed by 1995. The proposed buildings could be designed to accommodate a mix of large and small tenants, and to create a smooth flow of parking and pedestrian traffic. Buildings could vary in height from up to 95 feet, or greater with a Conditional Use Permit. In general, variations in building bulk, height, setbacks, and landscaping could be used to reduce the sense of building massing and add visual interest to the proposed development scenario. Any smaller buildings on the site could be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main structures. Landscaping, setbacks, and pedestrian pathways and amenities, and internal mall focal areas, such as fountains or 23 atriums, could be similar to Development Scenario "B" of the Proposed Action. Similar to Development Scenarios "A" and "B," Alternative 3 would require a site plan review process through which the design elements of the alternative would be refined, as necessary, to achieve the policy objectives of the City of Renton. The criteria by which the site plan would be evaluated are identified under the Proposed Action, above. 24 III. Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigating Measures III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES It is important to note that it can be misleading to attempt to quantify impacts from a programmatic action, such as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Impacts can vary greatly depending upon the actual uses and development features of the area under the new designation. This section of the Environmental Impact Statement provides an evaluation of the potential impacts and describes appropriate mitigating measures associated with approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would allow regional retail commercial development in the Valley Planning Area. This Section also evaluates the potential impacts and suggests mitigating measures for several development scenarios that could occur under Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone, if approved. The impacts associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval are described in Section III.A., and the potential impacts of site development scenarios are described in the Elements of the Environment, Sections III.B. through III.H. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction This section assesses the potential impacts of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would: . create a new Regional Commercial District objective in the Comprehensive Plan, with attendant policies, and . amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to extend the existing commercial designation in the southeast portion of the Valley Planning Area. The text of the produced Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which would apply to the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, is presented in Section II of this Draft EIS. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment would apply to the Proposed Action, and Alternatives 2 and 3. Figures 8 and 2 show existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan Map designations, respectively. As shown in Figure 8, the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment area is Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option (MP /MO), "an area intended for a broad range of choice in industrial, service commercial and offices uses" (Comprehensive Plan, page 48). The Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee has interpreted "service commercial" as the City Council's intent to restrict retail uses in the Valley, and has proposed to: "...limit retail uses in M -P and O -P (zones) to those 'intended to serve the needs' of the surrounding industrial, office or service uses..." (page 8, Planning and Development Committee Report, August 19, 1985). 25 1111211 k n rmin Rl11�Nl� ' y nu � rlrqlpir oft \ap �— or\fVl: *�g1ii�t�1iitil!!•l! u!1i!���t1�1t�in 1 1bq!!i!l arena/ `i. ►►��tfll tlitNV•, !la in MI6 111) 4.111•l111. \' wwww..1 wi1111Gi�1!l1' 1i/ �tw�luuI tef ids:• 111i1•. 1,1.1 /1111!■ ■1'1•!f _- MISSw ■Ulfll /r _ 1II111i1!!! •1 N Rill; �' - •�% I'll•!l111tY/1 ■\1111 yttl!' t!!1gl11111it1.•J _ - - •0000 • s .,� . ult'is1 '000 UM l Upll•r:•■ PISS tlq/! ■l11 I!1 -- _ •000' -_- r. ultutlit1111111g11 t1u■ 1011•1111•110 I$NU, 11pL1f �l tttt as UMW w..I1 use. ■wtu r �• ' 4t'iiY ►CSQF� J//.W IIHNlwwwO■ �•� J1..11 . 11 1111.•. Ji►A /p!1'!! 111 !11!1/!!1 •I. - -= // = AWN p - Ult.t/tlllttlttllt ' .•.�. OSSA 1! .f 11- '' •l!1 - 111p9 ' 1 -- NIFISSIS "II HI '11/11111. 1 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Area Figure 8 Existing Comprehensive Plan Designations City of Renton Legend: I Single Family Low Density Mufti - Family Medium Density Multi- Family •• IMINIESta High Density Multi- Family Sr'! Recreation Greenbelt Commercial \\\\\\ Office /Office Park '0 %% °0000000 °1 Pub lic/Ouasl-Public Light Industrial • •_o Heavy Industrial Manufacturing Park/ Multiple Option SHAPIEO& ASSIZEIATESY 2 6 The majority of the proposed rezone site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option (MP /MO) with the southeast corner of the site designated Commercial. The goals and policies of the MP /MO designation are implemented by the existing Manufacturing Park (M -P) zone, while the policies of the Commercial designation are implemented by the Business (B -1) zone. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (Compendium, March 1986) The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan consists of a set of general land use planning goals, objectives and policies that are supplemented by four area - specific subarea plans. Each of the subarea plans provides goals and development policies that are unique to a specific subarea of the City. The existing Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address regional commercial activities, nor does it identify policies and objectives governing them. Regional retail commercial activities generally, but not exclusively, would be defined as centrally located, large -scale retail and business and professional services that serve a geographically broad market area. A regional center typically provides for general merchandise, apparel, furniture, and home furnishings in depth and variety, as well as a range of services and recreational facilities. The absence of regional commercial policies in the Comprehensive Plan is the foundation for the initiation of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal that would enable the development of a regional commercial center. General goals for the City of Renton described in the Policies Element of the Comprehensive Plan that are germane to the Proposed Action include the following: . Environmental Goal: To establish and maintain a harmonious relationship between the developed community and its natural environment. . Economic Goal: To promote a sound, diversified economic base. . Urban Design Goal: To promote aesthetic and functional harmony and to provide a proper balance of residential, commercial and industrial areas. . Commercial Goal: To promote attractive, convenient viable systems of commercial facilities. . Transportation Goal: To promote a safe, efficient, and balanced multi modal- transportation system. Specific policies within the Comprehensive Plan that would be affected by the Proposed Action are described in Section II of this Draft EIS. These include: . Commercial Goals of the General Policies (pages 16 to 18 of the Comprehensive Plan) 27 - Commercial Land Uses identified in the Valley Plan area (page 46 of the Comprehensive Plan). The Green River Valley Policy Plan (Valley Plan) is one of four geographic subarea plans included in the Comprehensive Plan. The Valley Planning Area is a developing area of industrial, commercial, and office uses, similar in character to urbanized areas throughout the Green River Valley. Chapter III B, below, presents a characterization of land use changes that have occurred in the Valley, as well as a profile of existing land use. The Green River Valley Planning Area (referred to as "the Valley ") is that portion of the Green River Valley that is a part of the City of Renton or tributary to Renton. The boundaries of this area are generally the railroad tracks on the west, S.W. 43rd Street on the south, the base of Talbot Hill on the east, and I -405 on the north. The Valley Plan defines commercial uses for the Valley and states Locational Policies to be used in determining appropriate development guidelines for commercial uses. Similar to the overall Comprehensive Plan, the commercial areas identified in the Valley Plan Area do not designate areas for regional commercial use, nor establish standards to guide their development. The Proposed Action would add a definition of regional commercial uses and revise the locational policies (These definitions and policies are presented in Section II, above). History of Formal Considerations of Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designations in the Valley Planning Area The issue of retail development in the Green River Valley has been the subject of much public debate in the last five years. Historically, the City of Renton always had planned that the Valley be developed with industrial and manufacturing uses, as is evident in the earliest Comprehensive Plans for the area (1964 and 1976). Acknowledging the population growth throughout the Valley and Soos Plateau as well as the advantageous position of the Valley Planning Area with respect to the transportation system, both the City of Renton Planning Commission and the City Council recognize that a tremendous potential for major retail commercial development exists in the Green River Valley. In this context, both the Commission and Council have expressed concerns with respect to the nature and appropriateness of retail development in the Valley. This topic was the subject of debate during the development of the Comprehensive Plan Subarea Policies for the Green River Valley. In 1983 -1984, the City Planning Commission's Valley Plan Committee formally reviewed the land use designations for the Valley Planning Area. During the Committee's deliberations on land use in the Valley, the appropriateness of light industrial uses, high quality office development and retail uses were examined. It was the Committee's sentiment that a new land use designation that would allow multiple land use options would provide flexibility in developing Industrial, Office Park, Commercial and Manufacturing Park uses in the Valley. Furthermore, the Committee determined that retail uses would be inappropriate except in the south- eastern portion of the Valley Planning Area, where a "major commercial node" would be consistent with existing land uses. 28 During the Committee's report to the Planning Commission, the Commission observed that this limitation on commercial development was counter to one of the Committee's economics policies, which stated that, "A major portion of future industrial, commercial and office growth in the City of Renton should be directed toward the Valley Planning Area." As staff noted, the subject of commercial development in the Valley had not been fully explored by the Committee. According to the minutes of the May 9, 1984 public hearing on the Valley Plan Committee recommmendations, City Director of Policy Development Clemens noted that the subject of commercial use in the Valley appeared to be unresolved. The Valley Plan Committee reconsidered the subject of commercial development and deleted the reference to the Valley as providing the area into which a major portion of the City's future commercial development should be directed. This recommendation was incorporated into the Valley Plan that was adopted by the Planning Commission on June 13, 1984. In September, 1984, the City Council considered the Valley Plan, as adopted by the Planning Commission, and amended the Commercial designation language in the Valley Plan to reflect its intention to encourage "service commercial" uses, specifically those commercial uses that would meet the needs of the surrounding industrial, office, or service sector businesses and their employees. The Council then adopted the Valley Plan, as amended. In August, 1985, the City's Planning and Development Committee reviewed proposed revisions to the Manufacturing Park, Office Park, and Light and Heavy Industry zones. The Committee was concerned about protecting the economic viability of downtown retail businesses and also about the impact from strip commercial uses, but was not concerned about banning retail outright in industrial zones. Consequently, the Committee determined and the Council concurred that retail uses should be allowed with certain restrictions to mitigate their impact on the surrounding areas. These conditions would monitor signing, curb cuts, traffic movements, merchandise displays, etc., and require retail development to be part of larger planned complexes. Thus, it appeared to be the Council's intention not to exclude retail uses from the Valley area, but to discourage strip retail commercial developments. In response to an application for a rezone of a particular site that would allow development of regional commercial uses, the Mayor's Office requested in July, 1987, that planning staff "pursue a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as it pertains to retail development in the Valley." (See discussion in Section II of this Draft EIS). Based on a review of the land use planning process, there appear to be two key issues with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment: (1) what is the nature of appropriate retail development for the Valley Planning Area; and (2) is regional retail commercial development an appropriate land use for the City of Renton. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Approval of the proposed regional commercial policies and the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map redesignation would not result in direct impacts on the environment. (Refer to Section II of this EIS for specific descriptions 29 of the new regional commercial objective and policies.) Approval, however, would provide the policy framework to allow regional commercial development which in turn, could have both direct and indirect impacts on the environment. This impact assessment is organized, first, to generally describe the direct Comprehensive Plan implications of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, and then to evaluate the relationship of the proposed policies to existing Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Proposed Action Since the Proposed Action also includes adoption of a new element of the Comprehensive Plan ( "Regional Commercial District "), there are policy impacts, as well as land use impacts, to be considered. The policy impacts are discussed below and land use impacts of potential development scenarios are evaluated in Section III.B. below. The proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Plan area identified on Figure 2 would result in approximately 68.5 acres of land currently designated for Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option (MP /MO) being redesignated as Commercial. The Commercial designation allows a variety of uses, from offices to shopping centers. Several types and scales of commercial development could be encouraged as a result of changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of this area. A range of possible retail development scenarios is described for analysis in this Draft EIS. Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Map change also may result in existing land uses in the area, especially east of East Valley Road, to become nonconforming uses. These land uses include auto sales, motel, and warehousing /storage. Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment may result in pressures to allow for rezones in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment area in order to provide for regional commercial and /or related retail development. Over time pressures for changes in land uses adjacent and /or near to the site (e.g., displacement of existing industrial uses) would be likely because of changes in perception of the area and probable changes in land values. The attraction of the area for more compatible retail and office commercial uses would likely displace industrial uses. This trend could result in existing, lower density use (e.g., warehousing) seeking other locations. As a result of approval of this action, revisions of existing codes or adoption of new codes, policies, or ordinances to address new proposed regional commercial developments and resulting possible spinoff development may be required. Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new amendments or revisions to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan text or map; therefore, there would be no impacts to the City at this time. The proposed Compre- hensive Plan Amendment area would retain its Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option designation, which allows manufacturing park, industrial, office park and commercial uses. Developer- initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment 30 requests could be presented to the City in the future for a similar action, either near this site or for other sites in the City. The No Action Alternative would not result in existing land uses in the proposed Compre- hensive Plan Amendment area becoming nonconforming uses. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development Alternative 2 would not include the proposed policy revisions, but would extend northward the commercial designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The 68.5 -acre Comprehensive Plan Amendment area would be encouraged to develop in general commercial uses. Without implementation of regional commercial retail policies and a rezone to B -1, potential development of the site could result in similar uses to the area between SR -167 and East Valley Road and include such uses as professional and service business offices, motels, auto sales, etc. Land use would be guided by the Commercial policy of the Land Use element of the Valley Plan. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development The impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to the Proposed Action. Because of the Alternative's smaller scale, however, the South End market may not be fully accommodated by the development. This, in turn, could result in developer- initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests that would allow the development of other regional commercial centers in the City. It also could result in greater pressure to redevelop existing nonconforming uses in the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES This discussion describes the relationship of the Proposed Regional Commercial Policies to certain of the most relevant elements of the Comprehensive Plan. These proposed regional commercial policies are presented in Section II, above. . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - GENERAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (PAGES 8 -26 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) I. Environmental Goal: To establish and maintain a harmonious relationship between the developed community and its natural environment. Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #7 encourages ample landscaping to provide a pleasant environment. Adequate landscaping in a regional commercial area could be developed to provide open space and minimize erosion and sedimentation. Landscaped areas could be designed to incorporate surface water drainage features and, thereby, enhance runoff water quality. Landscaped areas also could provide wildlife habitat. 31 Regional Commercial Policy #3 requires that a regional commercial area develop with a single theme and a central focus. This proposed policy provides the basis for design elements that could create an internal site harmony, thereby facilitating the creation of a design theme, such as one emphasizing landscaping that could be harmonious with the natural environment. (For more detail, see the Water, Plants and Animals, and Aesthetics sections, below.) Moreover, Regional Commercial Policy #8, which requires site plan review, and Regional Commercial Policy #10, which encourage contract rezones, would provide the means by which regional retail commercial development projects could be evaluated to ensure that site plans, design elements and other project features are harmonious with the natural setting. II. Economic Goal: To promote a sound, diversified economic base. Comment: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment could meet both the fiscal balance and employment objectives of this goal by encouraging uses that, if developed, would provide a positive ratio of municipal tax revenues to costs, and would generate increased employment opportunities in the City of Renton. (For more detail, see Chapter III.H.) III. Urban Design Goal: To promote aesthetic and functional harmony and to provide a proper balance of residential, commercial and industrial areas. Comment: As described under the Environmental Goal comments, above, the Regional Commercial Policies provide for development with a unified theme and central focus, site plan review and landscaping. These policies would implement the intent of the Urban Design Goal. Furthermore, the prohibition on strip commercial develop- ment is intended to prevent the adverse aesthetic impacts typically associated with that type of development, while the encouragement of pedestrian- oriented features could result in amenities, such as fountains or sculptures, that would enhance the area's aesthetic interest. To the extent that regional commercial uses are not currently provided in the City, the approval of these policies would promote a more diversified balance of residential, commercial and industrial land uses. V. Commercial. Goal: To promote attractive, convenient, viable systems of commercial facilities. 32 A. Commercial Areas Objective: Sound commercial areas should be created and /or maintained and declining areas revitalized. Comment: Approval of the proposed Regional Commercial District Objective encourages the creation of a "sound commercial area, which is a regional commercial area that is intended to serve the South End Market." The proposed regional commercial policies do not encourage revitalization of a declining commercial area. The development of a regional center, "with (a probable) focus on a combination of destination and convenience retailers (would) pose only limited competition to downtown Renton. The specific impact on downtown Renton (would be) difficult to measure, however, downtown Renton is poised for revitalization and the attraction of locally owned specialty boutiques and destination- oriented retail uses. (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988)." Policies 1. Commercial zoning should be allowed only to the extent of short -term needs. Comment: The regional commercial policies would allow development of commercial uses for which there is a current need (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988). 2. In a residential planned unit development, commercial facilties should be limited. Comment: This policy does not apply to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment area. 3. To improve access, planned clusters of commercial development should be encouraged, and commercial strip areas should be discouraged. Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #3 prohibits strip retail developments. The regional commercial policies do not specifically encourage planned clusters of commercial development, however, Regional Commercial Policy #2 does encourage development with a single theme and with a central focus, which could include planned clusters, such as that illustrated by Development Scenario "A." 4. Commercial areas should be located and designed to minimize travel and congestion and to promote safety. 33 Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #1 encourages regional commercial areas to be located near easy freeway access and at the intersection of ' two arterials. Such locations minimize travel and, with proper mitigation, minimize congestion, and promote safety. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area is advantageously located with respect to the S.W. 41st Street interchange with SR -167. 5. Sufficient access, circulation, walkways, and off - street parking and loading should be provided by commercial developments. Comment: Regional Commercial Policies #5 and #6 encourage pedestrian - oriented amenities and common parking facilities, respectively. Adequate on -site parking and internal circulation could be provided to discourage on- street parking. Through the site plan review process (Regional Commercial Policy #8) the "safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation" would be reviewed, which would provide a means by which the sufficiency of access, circulation, walkways, and off - street parking and loading could be assured. 6. To minimize traffic congestion, commercial areas should not be located near facilities that require a high degree of safety and traffic control. Comment: Although Longacres Racetrack is in the general vicinity of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment area, Valley General Hospital is the only facility near the proposed Amendment area that requires a high level of traffic control and safety. Through the site plan review process (Regional Commercial Policy #8) the "safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation" would be reviewed. This would include a systematic analysis of the roadways and intersections in the Amendment area, and improvements, as appropriate, to ensure that safety and traffic control are acceptable. (See also the Transportation Section, below, which describes impacts and mitigation associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives.) 7. Commercial areas should be compatible with adjacent land uses. Comment: As illustrated in Figure 10, retail and office commercial uses currently exist at and near the proposed amendment area. Some uses may not be compatible with Regional Commercial Policy #4, which states that regional commercial areas should provide sales and service opportunities that are oriented to a broader market. 34 8. Buffers should be placed between commercial and single- family uses with higher density single- family as an alternative to multiple - family uses where either the scale of the commercial development or the geographic constraints in the vicinity of the commercial area represent opportunities to locate less intensive residential uses adjacent to the commercial areas. Comment: Single - family or multiple - family uses are not located adjacent to the proposed amendment area. The B -1 zone does allow multiple - family uses in mixed use developments, however, residential uses are not expressly addressed in the proposed Policy set. To the extent that site plan review is required by Regional Commercial Policy #8, adequate buffers would need to be provided to mitigate commercial project impacts on neighboring or on -site residential land uses. 9. A variety of goods and services should be available in each commmercial area. Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #4 encourages uses that serve a broader regional market and limits sale and service opportunities that are better suited to neighborhood commercial areas. 10. Various uses within a commercial area should be compatible with each other. Comment: Regional Commmercial Policy #2 encourages development of a central focus and single theme. Some existing uses in the area are not compatible with the regional commercial objective. Development of a regional center, however, would need to comply with site plan review requirements, as stipulated under Regional Commercial Policy #8, which would examine the compatibility of proposed uses. 11. Joint parking facilities should be encouraged. Comment: Regional Commercial policy #6 encourages common parking facilities. 12. Individual stores in an area should follow a common design and landscape theme. Comment: Regional Commercial policies encourage common themes and central focus (Policy #2), design standards (Policy #9), site plan review (Policy #8), and landscaping (Policy #7) to retain consistent design and landscaping themes within the development. 35 13. Adequate access for emergency and service equipment should be required. Comment: Regional Commercial Policy #1 stipulates that regional commercial areas should be located within easy access of a freeway and at the intersection of two arterials. This policy serves to provide adequate site access for emergency and service equipment. Regional Commercial Policy #8, which provides for site plan review, would examine proposed regional commercial development projects to ensure that "the safety and efficiency of vehicle...circulation," would be achieved. B. Commercial Structure and Sites Objective: Commercial structures and sites should be well- designed, constructed, and maintained. Comment: The design of any regional commercial development would need to comply with site plan review (Regional Commercial Policy #8) and, thereby, would comply with this objective. Regional Commercial Policy #10, which encourages a contract rezone, also could serve as a means by which the objective could be achieved. C. Neighborhood Commercial Areas Objective: Neighborhood commercial areas should include only those convenience -type uses which serve the immediate neighborhood. Comment: Regional Commmercial Policy #4 encourages sale and service opportunities that are oriented to a broader regional market and limits retail uses that are better suited for neighborhood commercial areas. D. Community Commercial Areas Objective: Community commercial areas should provide a broader variety of uses than neighborhood commercial areas, and be conveniently located to serve several neighborhoods. Comment: Regional retail commercial developments would provide goods and services for the broader regional market that would include the community in which they are located. For the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment area, this includes an employment community as well as a broader residential community. As such, the regional commercial center could provide uses that would serve several neighborhoods. The nearest community commercial area in the City of Renton is the Sears Center located downtown. There is sufficient distance between Sears Center and the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area so as to minimize, but not 36 eliminate, encroachment on the service areas of the community - oriented commercial uses of the two centers (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988). E. Downtown Business District Objective: The downtown business district should be preserved and enhanced to provide the broadest of personal services and retail sales opportunities. Comment: The policies of the Downtown Business District Objective focus on enhancement of the downtown area and do not attempt to preclude regional commercial development elsewhere in the City. The proposed regional retail policies encourage destination -type, comparison retail use. Goods or services provided as a result of development under the Proposed Action may or may not be provided now in downtown Renton. The market analysis prepared for the Sabey Corporation indicates a current need for regional commercial uses to serve the South End, which is generally defined as (a primary and secondary) trade area that extends southwest to Star Lake, south to the East Hill area of Kent, east to the Lake Youngs area, northeast to May Creek and northwest to Tukwila (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988). The service area is defined in part by population, but also by "market niches," with individual centers focusing on a specific niche, such as convenience, competitive price, or upscale destination shopping. Although there is an overlap in the geographic service area of the existing centers in the trade area, there is less competition for the market relative to their respective market niches. According to a market analysis prepared for the Sabey Corporation, the development of a regional commercial center "with (a probable) focus on a combination of destination and convenience retailers (would) pose only limited competition to downtown Renton. The specific impact on downtown Renton (would be) difficult to measure; however, downtown Renton is poised for revitalization and the attraction of locally owned specialty boutiques and destination - oriented retail uses. (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988)." VI. Industrial Goal: To promote the development, maintenance or rehabilitation of industrial facilities. Comment: Amending the Comprehensive Plan to include a larger Commercial designation in the Valley would reduce a corresponding amount (about 68.5 acres) of Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option (MP /MO)- designated land. Industrial policy #5 prohibits non - industrial uses, except for supportive and convenience uses, in industrial areas. As described in the previous section, the MP /MO- designation recently was created in order to provide flexibility in guiding land use decisions in the Valley. The 37 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow non - industrial uses, a portion of which could be supportive (commercial) uses. . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - AREA SPECIFIC POLICIES /GREEN RIVER VALLEY POLICY PLAN (PAGES 31 -50 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) B. GOALS General Area Goal: The Valley Planning Area should be developed with a diversity of high quality industrial, commercial, and office uses. The Valley should be the principal growth area for these uses within the City of Renton. Development within the Valley should be compatible with the availability of services and transportation and with the environmental objectives of the City of Renton. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial District Objective and regional commercial policies would encourage a broader range of retail commercial uses to develop, and thereby would contribute to a greater diversity of industrial, commercial and office uses in the Valley. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment identifies the Valley Planning Area as the location appropriate for the development of a regional commercial development. This is consistent with the provision of the General Area Goal that indicates that the Valley should be the location for growth of high quality commercial, office and industrial uses in the City of Renton. As discussed earlier in the chapter, however, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the intent to encourage "service commercial" uses in the Valley Planning Area. Regional Commercial Policy #8 states that site plan review would be required of any proposed regional commercial develop- ment. The site plan review would include an examination of criteria relating to the "availability of public services and facilities to accomodate the proposed use," the "safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation," and "conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies." This would include conformance with Transportation Policy VIIB6, which requires that property development should provide for public street improvements necessary to serve the site. Consequently, the review of any site plan with respect to these criteria would assess (or a contract rezone under Regional Commercial Policy #10 could assess) the compatibility of a proposed regional retail commercial development with the availability of services and the sufficiency of transportation facilities. See also the discussion of transportation, services and utilities in Chapters IIIC, D and F, below. 38 Similarly, as described in the comment with respect to the City of Renton's Environmental Goal, above, Regional Commercial Policies #3, 7, and 8 would ensure that the environmental objectives of the City would be evaluated during the consideration of regional commercial development proposals. Land Use Goal: To promote development of the Valley in a diversity of high quality industrial uses, together with commercial and office uses. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment would promote diversity of land uses in the Valley Planning Area by providing the policy base that would allow the development of regional retail commercial uses, which is a use that currently is not present in the Valley Planning Area. Economic Goal: To promote land development and commerce that will enhance a stable, diversified economic base for residents, employees, and businesses in the City of Renton. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment would promote land development that would produce a stable, diversified economic base. If regional commercial development occurs, employment opportunities would be generated and a positive ratio of municipal tax revenues to costs could be created. Environmental Goal: To ensure that development of the Valley is harmonious with the natural environmental setting, while minimizing pollution and other adverse environmental impacts. Comment: Regional Commercial Policies #3, 7, and 8 would ensure that the environmental objectives of the City would be evaluated during the consideration of regional commercial development proposals. Please refer to the discussion of these policies with respect to the General City of Renton Environmental Goal, above. Urban Design Goal: To promote a functional and aesthetic balance among industrial, commercial, office, recreational and other uses in the Valley through appropriate design standards and a logical land use pattern. Comment: The proposed policies encourage development of an aesthetic retail commercial development that would contribute to the provision of a functional balance of goods and services available to a broader regional market and the employment community in the Valley. 39 Regional Commercial Policy #8 requires site plan review in order to ensure that regional commercial development is appropriate, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, and compatible with land uses near to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment area. The criteria for site plan review are cited in Section II above. Transportation Goal: To promote efficient transportation within the Valley and adequate access to and from the Valley Planning Area. Urban Services Goal: To promote the adequate provision of utility services (including storm drainage control), community facilities, and recreational opportunities in the Valley. Comment: As stated above in the comment under the General Area Goal, it is expected that the site plan review process would ensure that a proposed regional retail commercial development would be examined in light of its consistency with an efficient transportation system and the adequacy of urban services. Specifically, it is expected that through the site plan review process infrastructure improvements would be required, as appropriate, to ensure an effective transportation system, and adequate utilities and services. The Transportation, Water Resources, Utilities, and Public Services chapters address the mitigation requirements that have been identified for the conceptual development alternatives. Economic Policy #3: A diversity of industrial, commercial and office uses should be encouraged to provide stability to the economy of the Valley and to municipal revenues, and to provide a wide range of employment opportunities. Comment: As described, above, in the comment to the Valley's Economic Goal, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would promote a diversity of uses in the Valley. The development of a regional commercial center also would provide a range of employment opportunities and provide a source of municipal revenues. It should be noted that although this economic policy encourages a diversity of uses, the diversity of commercial uses is constrained by the Council's encouragement of "service commercial" as the primary commercial use in the valley. Economics Policy #4: Activities with a favorable ratio of municipal revenues to costs should be encouraged. Comment: As calculated in Appendix G and presented in Chapter III.H. below, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would allow for the development of regional commercial uses encourages development with a positive municipal revenues to costs ratio. 40 Urban Design Policy # 1: Development standards that ensure high quality development ana encourage compatibility of adjacent uses should be established for industrial, commercial and office uses. Urban Design Policy # 5: Incompatible industrial and commercial uses should be discouraged. Urban Design Policy 16: Industrial park or business park development -- as opposed to single, unrelated uses -- should be encouraged. Urban Design Policy #7: Land uses in the Valley should be located so as to provide a harmonious mix. Urban Desi n Policy 114: The design, placement and size of signs s ou a compatible with high quality development. Additional advertising billboards shall be prohibited in the Valley. Comment: The proposed Regional. Commercial Policy #8, which would require site plan review for regional commercial development, provides a partial means by which the above urban design policies could be achieved when considering applications for regional retail commercial developments. Urban Design Policy 14: Site plan review should be required in the Valley. Comment: Site plan review is required under the proposed regional commercial policies. Urban Design Policy 18: Design standards or restrictive covenants executed between property owners and subsequent tenants or purchasers should be encouraged. Comment: This urban design policy is repeated as one of the proposed regional commercial policies. Urban Design Policy 110: Ample landscaping should be provided throughout a developed site, including along property lines, to provide a pleasant environment, minimize the impact of development, and enhance the visual experience from adjacent properties, including hillsides. Comment: This urban design policy is repeated (with the exception that the words "including hillsides" are not included) as one of the proposed regional commercial policies. 41 Storm Drainage /Flood Control Policy #7: New development throughout the Valley should provide on -site and lateral storm drainage as part of the overall storm drainage plan for the Valley. Storm Drainage /Flood Control Policy #8: Development regulations and flood control solutions should involve properties throughout the Black River /Springbrook Creek basin -- including upland areas. Storm Drainage/Flood Control Policy #11: The Flood Hazard Ordinance should be administered on the basis of requiring compensating storage -- either on -site or within the P -1 Channel alignment -- for new development or landfill below the base flood elevations of the revised Flood Hazard maps. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #8, which would require site plan review for regional commercial development, provides a partial means by which the above storm drainage /flood control policies could be achieved when considering applications for regional commercial developments. See Chapter III.D. below, for a discussion of calculated detention requirements. Transportation Policy #3: The interchange of SR -167 at S.W. 43rd Street should be improved to accomodate more efficient access to the Valley Planning Area. Transportation Policy #11: The City should work with Kent, Tukwila and King County to reduce the impacts of through traffic on S.W. 43rd Street and to provide additional east -west routes through the Valley. Transportation Policy #14: The number of access points on individual sites should be minimized. Transportation Policy #15: Along arterial routes, direct access to individual sites should occur only when alternate access via secondary streets is unavoidable. Transporation Policy #20: New development should help finance off - street and traffic control improvements in proportion to the additional traffic impacts created. Comment: As described in the Transportation chapter of this Draft EIS, the development of a regional commercial center would increase traffic volumes on the roads, intersections and interchanges in the area of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Prelim- inary roadway improvement needs for the conceptual development alternatives are identified. Any development- induced roadway improvement needs would be identified through the site plan review process and accommodated, as warranted, by the imposi- tion of proportional developer fees. 42 Transportation Policy #17: All parking, servicing, loading and unloading of vehicles should be only on -site. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #6 states that common parking facilities should be constructed. This policy and other development standards with respect to servicing, loading, and unloading of vehicles would be addressed through the site plan review process that would examine the specific proposal's compliance with applicable plans, policies and standards. Transportation Policy #18: A system of bicycle /pedestrian trails separate from the street system and a system of marked bicycle routes should be established. Transportation Polic #19: Provision for pedestrians should be provided throughout fie system of streets in the Valley. Recreation Policy #6: A system of bicycle /pedestrian trails separate from the street system and a system of marked bicycle routes should be incorporated in the development plan for the Valley and should connect with other trails or recreation destinations. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #5 states that pedestrian oriented amenities should be encouraged. The site plan review process would examine the proposed pedestrian and bicycle amenities incorporated into proposed regional retail commercial developments to ensure that the on -site trails are integrated into area trail system networks, as appropriate. Utilities Policy #1: Development within the Valley should be served by adequate utilities. Comment: As described in the Utilities Chapter, the capacity of existing utilities in the Valley is sufficient to accomodate the anticipated needs of new development, including development that would be allowed through the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Utilities Policy #2: New development should provide for utility extensions to service itself. Utilities Policy #3: All utilities should be placed underground. Utilities Policy #4: Sites and buildings should be designed to maximize energy conservation. 43 Community Facilities #1: The City should closely monitor fire protection needs in the Valley and provide for a new fire station when appropriate. Comment: The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #8 states that site plan review would be required of new regional commercial development. A specific criterion of the site plan review process is that proposed projects would be evaluated with respect to the "availability of public services and facilities to accomodate the proposed use." Through this review the above utilities policies would be considered. Recreation Policy #1: Provision of recreational opportunities should be an integral part of development in the Valley. Recreation Policy #2: Recreational opportunities in the Valley that serve both employees and the community should be encouraged. Comment: A preliminary assessment of recreation areas and project - -related demands (see Chapter III.G) suggests that the project could increase demands in the Talbot Hill /Springbrook neighborhoods, where existing parks do not meet the City's objectives, and in the Green River Valley area, where there is an adequate inventory of parks. The proposed Regional Commercial Policy #8 states that site plan review would be required of new regional commercial development. A specific criterion of the site plan review is that proposed projects would be evaluated with respect to the "availability of public services and facilities to accomodate the proposed use." The adequacy of recreation facilities, both on -site as well as in the Valley Planning area would be considered, as appropriate, through that review process. Alternatively, the regional commercial policy that encourages contract rezones is a means by which the above policies are implemented. Commercial Land Use Description: An area intended for retail activi- ties, shopping centers, office uses, personal and professional service activities, non - industrial wholesale, mixed commercial/ residential uses, and similar compatible uses. The intensity and scale of commercial uses permitted in the Central Business District, adjacent to major arterials and near other non - residential uses, should be greater than the scale of commercial activity permitted near more sensitive land uses. Comment: By enabling the development: of a focused regional retail shopping center, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment in effect would expand the existing commercial land use description in the Valley 44 Planning Area. The text of the expanded commercial land use description that would allow the development of a regional commercial area is presented in Section II.C. above. Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option Land Use Description: An area intended for a broad range of choice in industrial, service commercial and office uses. The Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option designation is intended primarily for light industrial uses with certain compatible heavy industrial, commercial, and office uses located in a park -like setting of high operational and environmental standards. However, in certain locations, a different mix of industrial, service, and office uses is appropriate because of site characteristics such as access, natural features, and surrounding uses. The purpose of the Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option designation is to provide for the broadest possible range of uses in areas designated and mapped simply as Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option. In areas with special site characteristics, a suffix may be added to further refine the types of allowable uses. These areas should be indicated on the Land Use Element Map and described in written policies. Development in all Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option areas should be characterized by adequate setbacks, landscaping, design standards, wildlife habitat and open space, and minimum impacts from noise, glare, traffic, air and water pollution, and safety hazards. Comment: Designating the southeast corner of the Valley Planning Area and implementing the proposed policies for regional commercial land use would reduce the amount of land area available for industrial development. The proposed regional commercial policies are similar to and consistent with the Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option standards, which are intended to promote compatible industrial and commercial developments. MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed Comprehensive Plan policies for regional commercial development in Renton encourage development of a major retail shopping center. The policies provide for a fairly specific range of uses that could be incorporated, and they recommend site plan review and design standards to maintain unified design themes within the development. An integral component of the proposed policies is the requirement for site plan review, which provides the means by which regional commercial development proposals would be evaluated. The criteria for site plan review are identified in Section II, and include by reference, all applicable City goals, objectives and policies. The proposed policies could be refined to further address the general goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Valley Plan. Specific elements that could be addressed in detail in the policy wording, include emergency and general site access, on -site pedestrian /bicycle trails relationship to the trails in the Valley system, environmental, recreation, and open space policies. 45 The regional commercial policies also encourage contract zones, which would provide a means by which development standards and time limitations could be imposed upon development proposals. Contract rezones could be an effective means to specify conditions that would implement the intent of the City's policies as they pertain to a. specific site. The appropriateness of residential use in regional commercial areas and the adequacy of Residential Use policies and the proposed Regional Commercial policies to control residential development and design controls should be evaluated. The City of Renton could institute a design review committee or an architectural review board to further ensure the suitability of regional commercial and other development proposals in the Valley. A multi- agency forum, including other affected jurisdictions (e.g., Kent, Tukwila, and King County), could be developed to coordinate the resolution of design and development issues of concern in the Valley. Design standards could be recommended as an overlay to the B -1 zone or a new zone classification could be developed that addresses site layout, buffer transitions with adjacent land uses /zones, curb cuts, signage, lighting, and landscaping for regional commercial areas. Specific language could avoid the strip commercial development expressed as a concern by decision - makers. Other mitigation measures for the identified impacts associated with the rezone or physical development impacts are described in this Draft EIS under individual elements of the environment. 46 B. LAND USE - A DISCUSSION OF PLANNING AREA LAND USE TRENDS, ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS This chapter first defines regional retail commercial developments in order to provide a context for land use issues, and then describes the historic changes in land use in the Valley, characterizes potential and existing land uses and zoning in the vicinity of the proposed rezone site, assesses potential land use changes that could occur as a result of the rezone approval, and evaluates potential impacts of the conceptual development scenarios. The analysis of the impacts includes non - project (rezone) impacts as well as potential impacts that could result from the subsequent site development. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Retail Centers As formulated by the former Community Builders Council of the Urban Land Institute: "...a shopping center is a group of commercial establishments planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit related in location, size, and type of shops to the trade area the unit serves; it provides on -site parking in definite relationship to the types and sizes of stores." The Urban Land Institute categorizes shopping centers into four types: the neighborhood, the community, the regional, and the super regional. In ail cases, a shopping center's typ— e s determined by its major tenant or tenants; the type is based on neither site area nor square feet of the structure. Neighborhood and community centers are primarily for convenience shopping while the regional and super regional centers are primarily for comparison shopping. A neighborhood center provides for the sale of convenience goods and personal services for the day -to -day living needs of the immediate neighborhood. The neighborhood center may range in size from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet of gross leaseable area; a supermarket is generally the principal tenant. (GLA - the total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use, including any basements, mezzanines, or upper floors, expressed in square feet and measured from the centerline of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. GLA is all that area for which tenants pay rent. GLA has been adopted by the shopping center industry as its standard for statistical comparison.) In addition to the convenience goods and personal services of the neighborhood center, a community center provides a wider range of facilities for the sale of soft lines (wearing apparel) and hard lines (hardware and appliances). The community center offers a broader variety of merchandise and is typically built around a junior department store, variety store, or discount department store as the major tenant in addition to a supermarket. It does not have a full -line department store, though it may have a strong specialty store. It may range in size from 100,000 to 300,000 square feet. 47 The regional center provides for general merchandise, apparel, furniture, and home furnishings in depth and variety, as well as a range of services and recreational facilities. It is built around one or two full -line department stores of generally not less than 100,000 square feet. In theory, a typical size for definitional purposes is 400,000 square feet of GLA. The regional center is the second largest type of shopping center. As such, the regional center provides services typical of a business district yet not as extensive as those of the super regional center. A super regional center provides for extensive variety in general merchandise, apparel, furniture, and home furnishings as well as a variety of services and recreational facilities. It is generally built around at least three major department stores of generally not less than 100,000 square feet each. In theory, the typical size of a super regional center is about 750,000 square feet of GLA. In practice the size ranges to more than 1,000,000 square feet. A regional retail commercial center, which is the use that would be allowed consistent with the objective of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, can be described as a super regional shopping center, according to the ULI definitions; however, in this document, the center is referred to as a regional retail commercial center. Regional commercial centers and their approximate distance from the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and rezone site include: . Southcenter Mall, 2 miles . Parkway Plaza, 2 miles . Factoria Square, 9 miles . Sea Tac Mall, 10 miles . Bellevue Square, 12 miles Downtown Seattle also should be mentioned as a regional commercial area. It is approximately 12 miles from the area of the Proposed Action. The following are the major competitive retail centers and anchor tenants in the primary trade area of the proposed regional commercial center: Estimated Name Anchor Tenants GLA Pavilion Outlet Center Parkway Plaza Center Place Parkway Square Southcenter Mall Frederick & Nelson North Benson Center Renton Shopping Center Nordstrom Rack, Marshalls Best, Bon Home Store Pier 1 Imports Toys "R" Us Bon, Nordstrom, J.C. Penney, Fred Meyer Sears, J.C. Penney Source: Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988. 48 195,118 S.F. 790,000 S.F. 44,500 S.F. 100,000 S.F. 1,114,667 S.F. 265,000 S.F. 310,000 S.F. Historical Development in the Green River Valley Planning Area The Green River Valley in Renton is an historic floodplain. Prior to the development of structural protection in the form of levees and construction of the Howard Hanson Dam, the Valley flooded annually, depositing areas of standing water that typically remained for several months. Between 1948 and 1960, decisions were made to construct a series of capital facilities that triggered the conversion of this prime agricultural valley to an industrial park. These improvements included the early 1960's construction of I -405 and SR -167, which provided regional access, construction of Howard Hanson Dam, and conceptual approval of the P -1 drainage project to control flooding from the interior Eastside Watershed. The Green River Valley was annexed into the City of Renton in 1959. Shortly after the opening of I -405 in 1962., land uses in the Valley were agricultural or fallow, with the notable exception of Longacres Racetrack. Between 1960 and 1970, little industrial development occurred in the Valley, with the only project developed in the main portion of the Valley between the West Valley and East Valley Highways being the Mobil Oil tank farm, which was approved in 1965. Scattered fill permits totaling approximately 66 acres were issued for the valley fringe between West Valley Highway and the Green River, and between East Valley Road and the East Valley Highway. In 1969, Glacier Park, the development arm of Burlington Northern Railroad, applied for a fill permit for the southern 594 acres in Renton. The City Council was concerned about the size of the permit for speculative filling, about the impact of this filling on the environment, particularly wetlands, and about the lack of services and roads. Because of these substantial concerns, no final action was taken by the City on this application until 1975. The City Council did, however, approve two rezones (totaling 214 acres) from General Use to Manufacturing Park in the southern portion of the Valley north of S.W. 43rd Street and west of SR -167. Existing Land Use The Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and proposed rezone area, as shown in Figure 1, are located in the Green River Valley in the City of Renton. The Green River Valley extends beyond the City of Renton's jurisdictional boundary and includes major land uses of regional importance, such as the Southcenter Mall in Tukwila, recreational activities, such as racing at Longacres Racetrack, fishing, boating, and hiking, and serves as a major employment center. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment area and rezone area are located in the southeast portion of the Green River Valley Planning Area of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The Valley Planning area is one of four planning areas in the City of Renton and consists of approximately 1,885 acres. The planning area boundaries are the railroad tracks on the west, S.W. 43rd Street on the south, the base of Talbot Hill on the east, and I -405 on the north. 49 Most of the Valley Planning Area is undeveloped (44 %), with parks and recreation (15 %), industrial (19 %), major rights -of -way (10 %), and commercial (8 %) comprising the major land uses. Figure 9 illustrates the 1987 distribution of land uses in the Valley Planning area. 44% Figure 9. Land Use Distribution in the Valley Planning Area 10% 1% 8% Source: City of Renton, 1987a. 19% 4% 11 RESIDENTIAL ❑ COMMERCIAL El INDUSTRIAL ® PUBLIC /QUASI- PUBLIC ® PARKS/RECREATION IA UNDEVELOPED m MAJOR RIGHTS -OF -WAY Land uses within the general area of the proposed rezone primarily consist of single- story, concrete buildings used for office, retail, warehouse, and light industrial manufacturing space, as shown in Figure 10. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area are a mix of commercial and warehousing/ industrial uses characteristic of the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. The vacant (approximately) 46 -acre proposed rezone site covers an entire block, except approximately six acres in the southwest corner. This 6 -acre parcel currently is used as a sales office and distribution center for an office supplies store. To the east of the proposed rezone site between East Valley Road and SR -167, there is a narrow strip of mixed light industrial and commercial uses. These uses include an auto wrecking yard, a restaurant, a hotel, mini - warehouses and a car dealership. This strip is included in the area proposed for the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option to Commercial. Further east on the east side of SR -167 is the Valley Medical Center. The area directly south of the proposed rezone site (south of S.W. 41st Street) is developed in a mixture of commercial (e.g., health spa, restaurants) and office uses (including medical offices). The commercial uses are physically oriented toward the major arterials of S.W. 43rd 50 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AREA Source: Shapiro & Assoc., Inc. Figure 10 Existing Land Use City of Renton Vacant ;�, %� Light Industrial l ° Warehouse Institution I I I I I I I I I • CommerciaVOKice CommerciaVRetail 'Residential 0. 300 Scale in Feet 6°° N SHAPIRO& ASSEIATES 51 Street and East Valley Road, with a large office complex in the center and northern portion of the area. South of S.W. 43rd Street, in the City of Kent, the immediately adjacent area is largely undeveloped, with the exceptions of the Home Club retail outlet located between SR -167 and East Valley Road, and small commercial and office uses that lie along the major arterials. To the west and southwest of the proposed rezone site are large, concrete structures that appear to be used for warehousing and light manufacturing. Interspersed with these warehouses are several four- and five -story office complexes. About three - fourths of the block on the north side of the proposed rezone site is developed in warehousing, with the remaining eastern portion of the site one - quarter vacant. The back lot of the warehousing is served by a rail spur that is located on the proposed rezone site. Existing Zoning Figure 11 identifies existing zoning in the study area. The proposed Comprehensive Amendment Map Area and rezone site is zoned Manufacturing Park, as adopted by Council during the Green River Valley Rezone (Phase I) in April 1986 (Ordinance 3983). An adjacent southeast portion of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area currently is zoned for business use. The Manufacturing Park Zone The Manufacturing Park Zone (Section 4 -730 of the City of Renton Zoning Code) is intended to provide for a wide variety of industrial, transportation, service and office activities that meet high operational, development, and environmental standards. Compatible personal service and retail uses that are supportive of industrial areas also are permitted. A listing of uses that are allowed in the M -P zone are presented in Table 3. Appendix F reprints relevant sections of the Zoning Code, including the section that addresses the Manufacturing Park District. The M -P zone is intended to implement the Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option, Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option - Office /Light Industry, and Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option- Industry designations of the Comprehensive Plan. The M -P zone specifies principal, accessory, or conditional uses as may be appropriate. Principal uses include manufacturing, processing, assembling and product servicing, transportation, communication and utility services, business, professional, personal and recreational services and offices, wholesale trade, retail trade, recycling collection centers, and hobby kennels. Retail uses allowed in the M -P zone are subject to development standards contained in.Section 4- 730(C)2 of the Zoning Code. Key elements of these standards include: 52 J[ SW 34th St. R -1 e4' 11111111 �-- PROPOSED —p. B -1 ZONE EXISTING M -P l r Ili - 11'11- r -M" . SW 41st St. PROPOSED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL C of Renton City Limits City of Kent Figure 11 Existing Zoning City of Renton M -1 Legend: G -1 General — Single Family R -1 Single Family R -2 Residential-Two- Family R -3 Residential- Multiple Family M -P Manufacturing Park B -1 Business Use P -1 Public Use M -1 Light Industrial(City of Kent) 53 0 300 600 Scale in Feet A q 1. All developments in the M -P zone are required to have an approved site plan. 2. The design of the structures must,be generally consistent with surrounding uses. 3. No exterior display of merchandise that is visible from the public right -of -way is permitted. 4. Any retail uses with less than 25,000 square feet of floor space must be integrated into a larger, planned development. 5. Direct access of retail uses to major arterials will be allowed only when there is no other option. 6. No roof signs. The Business District Zone The purpose of the Business District Zone (B -1) (Section 4 -711 of the City of Renton Zoning Code) is to provide for retail sales of products of every type and description, a wide variety of personal and professional services to clients and /or customers at the business location, and all manner of recreation or entertainment uses. Table 3 identifies principal, accessory, and conditional uses that are allowed in the B -1 Zone. Principal uses include retail sales, offices, services, and residential units when located in mixed use complexes, and hobby kennels. Additional information on the Business District Zone is presented in Appendix F, which reprints the section of the Zoning Code that addresses the B -1 Zone. Table 4 presents a comparison of the development standards that apply to the Manufacturing Park and Business District Zones. Zoning of the Proposed Rezone Site The proposed rezone site, similar to much of the Green River Valley Planning Area, has a history of industrial and office zoning. Generally, industrial zoning allows other types of uses (e.g., offices and wholesale and retail services). Before the rezone site was annexed to the City of Renton, it was zoned for industrial (including office) uses by King County. When the site was annexed by the City of Renton in 1959 (Ordinance 1743), the City applied a General Use zoning category. The site remained in General Use until 1965 when the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted an Industrial land use designation and zoning (which also allowed office and other related uses) for the site. The proposed rezone site was rezoned to Manufacturing Park (M -P) in 1969 (Ordinance 2533). A slightly different M -P zoning classification was applied to the site with the 1976 adoption of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following discussion is organized into two subsections: the first assesses the probable programmatic land use impacts of the zone 54 Table 3 SUMMARY OF ALLOWABLE USES IN THE MANUFACTURING PARK AND BUSINESS ZONES USE MANUFACTURING PARK: BUSINESS USE DISTRICT : DICTRICT Mar& transportation Condaond Art Garay Principal Principal Principal Auto Repair Booming and Lodging Mousse Pmnopd Bus terminals, taxi hat arts (no set pkg.f Principal Busness aerviose + Principal • Principal Cat wad* Principe! 4. Cemetery, columba ium, crematory mausoleum : Con6timd • Church es t Principal Communication services Prindpd Cmvdescent and nursing homes Con66md Cultural cervices Plindpd Day Care tsalines Principal Principal Detached buildnps or structures Educational instbnbon Educational services Ex • ess .. and haulm • mini es AoceteorX i Condtimal • '..1. Faineance - apparel. labric and leather goods Pdndpd Accessory Food preparation Accessory Principal Fund homes Gudine service {Mons i Condtimd Condbond Government offices and facilites : Co win:nd : Principal (excl. utilities) Greenhouse Carhdtiond Group Hanes + Condtimd 14ndasftip predicts Peindpd Accessory Health services Prindpd Heliports Condtiond Kernels f+rincipd Principal Hospital Candtiond ; Gentians! Hotels and molds .. i Pdncipd Indoor Public Assemb�i - Lead services Prinapd i Library i Condtimd ' Principal Manufacturing, processing, sssernbing and poor; Principal • Motion picture theaters and similar facilities Principal Pvindpd Museum Candiard Prindpd Naiad resource devolapnent facilites Conciliate' Nursery : Candbonal Office - Yearns/ PdnciRd Otiose - Administrative ••• +.. »•••• «»•• »... »•••••• «•• Condtiond »•••• »• «..................... Cflese • Finandd 1----....—.----1 d Principal Principal Principal Offices • Medical Offices • Prolspmd ` - Principal • Principal Other Services Principal Outdoor activities affiliated w Permitted Use Outdoor recreation or entertainment use Outdoor stair Outside Storage ► — Condland 1. ... : Condbond « Condbantl Accessory Park 'n Ride tit ► Condemn' • PadhADpsn apace Carndbond Principal Parking lots and gapes Principal Personal services Principal Principal Pet '^0P end lroom 1p Philanbrtpio InatWOm P rivate dub, fraternal nonprofit organization .. Professional services ». Pnnopsl Condtimd • • Cmdtiond Principal • Coi dtmd • Pubic utiy um or structure 1 Redo or television transmitter Cordials! • Recreational or ammuri center Cmdtimd Reaeatonal services Pdnde.: Principal Principal Condtimd Reterdin& colonial camas iecXedeetio swims 4 Rental Services (no eext. storepel °• Rental Services .e t. store a ,RCS err services Principal ► Principal Repair services (associated w. Permitted Use) Ameeeory Research and Develaprnent services Principal Residence Accessory i Principal Retell Babe - apparel and accessories :..» • Principal Retail soles • auto, boat and motorcycle Ptlndpd Retail sales • automotive and marine acceseaies a Principal Retail sales - deoml and variety stores Principal Retail sales • dry goods r Pnndpd Retail sales - eating and drinking establishments Principal • Retail soles • furniture end home furnishings : Principal • Retail Wes • garden supple* ; Principal Racal W vary - ccery stores Principal Retail Sales dive -up Windows AccesecX Retail Trade Principal e Sanitonum Condtond Schools - pofsssional and business Prindpd Condtimal Schaal* • technical and industrial access Security buidng Accessory Social services i Principal • Accessory Accessory • • Condtional Condtonal • Scraps - associated w. retail sales ` Stomps - psadsum, natural as Stora9s - self serve Truck tens ails and associated warehousing • 4 Utility dstibubon activities • < Principal • W arehouseg and eta -.. a Principal • Whdesde trade • Principal , Source: City of Renton Zoning Code 55 01 of Development Standard 1. Setbacks 2. Height Table 4 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE MANUFACTURING PARK AND BUSINESS USE ZONES Business Use District a. Streets - 10' for buildings < 40' high; 20' for buildings 40 -80' high; 30' for buildings > 80' high. Manufacturing Park a. Streets - All buildings and structures minimum of 60' from highway or property line; limited access highway - 20' setback. b. Other Yards - All buildings minimum 20' from all other property lines. c. Railroad Spur Track - Required setbacks shall not apply along portion of building or structure contiguous to a railroad spur track. d. Other standards - (1) Properties adjacent to residential lots; (2) Use of setback areas; (3) Flexible setbacks - one of the setbacks may be reduced or eliminated. a. 95' maximum bldg. height. a. b_ May exceed max. height b. with cond. use permit; Cond. use permit currently is exempt from site plan review. c. May exceed height of adjacent residl. zone by 20' max. No height limit. Setback increased by 1' for each foot of bldg. height > 45 feet. Development Standard. 3. Landscaping 4. Parking Table 4 (continued) Business Use District a. Minimum of 10' along public streets. Manufacturing Park a. Setback Areas - strip 20' min. width or 1/2 the required setback, whichever is less, adjacent to all highway ROWs; and a strip 10' min. or 1/2 req. setback, whichever is less, adjacent to interior side lot lines. b. If adjacent to residl. b. lot, then 15' landscaped strip or 5' site - obscuring strip and solid 6' high barrier. (see Title IV, Chapt. 22 of Renton City Code) If adjacent to residl. lots, then strip 10' min. wide with evergreen shrubs or trees min. of 5' high prior to occupancy; c. All areas of site not covered by bldgs. structures or paved shall be landscaped; d. Flexible landscaped areas (4- 730 -10). (see Title IV, Chapt. 22 of Renton City Code) In addition: a. 1 off - street loading space and 1 additional load space for each 70,000 s.f. of gross floor area over 6,000 s.f. b. Min. 250 s.f. for off - street load space. c. All loading maneuvers on pvt. prop. d. Off- street loading shall not interfere with use of required off - street parking areas. 01 CO Development Standard 5. Lot coverage /lot area 6. Signs 7. Environmental Performance Standards 8. Other Standards Table 4 (continued) Business Use District a. For buildings shall not exceed 65 %. b. May be increased to 75% if parking provided within building or in garage. (See Title IV, Chpt. 19, City Code). Off premises signs (billboards) currently exempt from site plan review. Do not apply. Manufacturing Park a. Min.lot area 35,000 s.f., except for lots existing before 12/1/86. (See Title IV, Chpt. 19, City Code). Roof signs prohibited. Off premises signs (billboards) currently exempt from site plan review. Apply to noise, smoke, odorous gases / and matter, toxic gases and matter, vibration, glare and heat. a. No drive -up windows permitted; b. Avoid strip development by developing retail or service uses as part of larger planned commercial, office, or industrial complexes having common architectural or landscaping themes. A retail or service use shall not stand alone, unless gross floor area > 25,000 s.f. c. Restrictions regarding outside storage and refuse. classification, including the proposed rezone, and the second examines potential land use impacts of the development scenarios (Chapter IIIA discusses the probable land use impacts, as well, focusing on the consistency of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment with Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies.) Impacts of the Proposed Rezone to B -1 (Business District) and of No Rezone The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 include zone reclassification from MP to B -1. Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, the rezone would be accompanied by Comprehensive Plan text amendments that would provide regional commercial development policies, as well as a change to the Plan Map. Alternative 2 would change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation, however, no policies establishing guidance for regional commercial development would be created. Under Alternative 1 there would be no changes to the Comprehensive Plan text or map or to the zoning designation. Proposed Action and Alternative 3 The principal uses allowed under the Business District (B -1) zone include retail sales (e.g., apparel, autos, furniture, groceries); offices (e.g., business, professional, medical); services (e.g., bus terminals, churches, hotels, theaters, recycling centers); residential units in mixed use developments; and other uses as identified in Table 3. Rezone to B -1 could result in a range of uses occurring on the site of the proposed rezone site, as allowed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the objective of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to encourage regionally - oriented retail developments: a limitation on use that is more restrictive than the existing Comprehensive Plan. Consequently, under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, development would be guided toward regional retail commercial uses. The diversity of retail goods likely to be found at a regional retail shopping center could serve a range of needs not currently provided in other B -1 districts. In addition to the change in principal uses, a rezone in this area could create pressure to rezone other parcels in the vicinity to a higher (B -1) use, particularly the area currrently designated M -P south of S.W. 34th Street between SR -167 and East Valley Road. (See Figure 11) Alternative 2 Alternative 2, is only possible if the proposed policies of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment are not adopted. A map redesignation to commercial under this alternative would still occur; however, the policies guiding regional commercial development would not be part of the action. This could allow development of a wide range of separate, independent land uses that do not have a single theme or central focus to unify the design and appearance of the area. Impacts of No Rezone Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative, the zoning of the site would remain M -P, and there would be no approval of regional commercial policies. Development 59 under the M -P zone could include a wide range of principal uses, such as manufacturing, services, and offices, as identified in Table 3. Land development under this alternative would be consistent with the existing goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Physical Development Impacts of the Conceptual Development Scenarios Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan policies, map change, and rezone could result in the development of a wide variety of commercial uses. This subsection reviews land use impacts that could result from the proposed rezone site changing from a vacant to a developed property. The land use impacts described are examples of what could occur under the conceptual development scenarios described in Section II. Actual development is expected to be similar; however, the ability to assess land use impacts is limited until more specific site plans and project mitigations are developed. While not a direct impact of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone, there could be development pressures on nearby properties to develop in uses complementary to those established on the proposed rezone site. Cumulative land use impacts of Green River Valley development (under Renton, Kent, Tukwila, Auburn, and King County jurisdiction) also are probable. Although there are certain cooperative efforts to resolve flooding, agricultural, and traffic impacts as a result of Valley development, long -term land use effects are difficult to predict and quantify. The Proposed Action: Development Scenarios "A" and "B" Under the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone, physical development could be characterized by the construction and operation of approximately 1,100,000 gross square feet of regional commercial space on the approximately 46 acres that are defined by the proposed rezone site. The establishment of a regional commercial center would be a significant departure from existing land use in the Green River Valley Planning Area, specifically, and the City of Renton, generally. Land development would be guided by the proposed regional commercial policies that prohibit strip retail commercial components and that provide for a single theme and a central focus, pedestrian- oriented amenities, common parking facilities, landscaping, and a site plan review process that would implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and policies, as well as the development standards of the B -1 Zone. Under Development Scenarios "A" and "B," land use on the site would change from a vacant parcel to a regional retail commercial center with a unifying architectural and landscaping theme, common parking and a pedes- trian- orientation that could include such features as covered walkways, benches and setting areas. As described in the next chapter, the physical appearance of the site would change as the site becomes a destination for consumers from a broad regional market. The development could provide approximately 1,000,000 square feet of net leaseable space for sales and service opportunities that would serve a 60 broader regional market, limiting those types of development better suited to neighborhood and commercial centers. As described in the preceding section, the Conceptual Development Scenario "A" is characterized by three separate clusters of buildings. Under Development Scenario "8," the commercial center is characterized by a single mall -like structure. The impact of a regional retail commercial center with an orientation to a broader regional market characterized by a combination of destination and convenience retailers could pose only limited competition to downtown Renton, minor competition to Southcenter, and only minimal competition to the Fred Meyer Center (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988). The retail commercial center could be targetted to destination and comparison shoppers, which would make it more competitive with Southcenter compared to the Fred Meyer Center (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988). The specific impact on downtown Renton, including the Renton Shopping Center, is difficult to measure; however, downtown Renton is poised for revitalization and the attraction of locally owned specialty boutiques and destination - oriented retail uses (Conger & Clarke, Inc., 1988). The establishment of a regional retail commercial center at the proposed rezone site could reduce pressures to develop a comparable center in the market area, thereby altering land use in the broader Green River Valley. However, increased commercial development pressure could occur on nearby properties. Although it is unknown what type of developments likely would occur, it is possible that future surrounding developments could be similar or complementary. Alternative 1: No Action Although many types of development are possible under the M -P designation, a 1.5 million square foot office park is described as an example of the type of development that could be likely to occur under Alternative 1. A large office complex would be consistent with existing land use in the area and could create market demand for supporting commercial services. This could stimulate service - compatible offices and retail outlets, and result in displacement of incompatible uses (i.e., bulk storage and warehousing). This No Action" alternative could continue to encourage the land uses and development patterns as they currently exist in the area, although the Comprehensive Plan encourages other land uses, including manufacturing and industrial uses. Because no regional retail commercial center would develop at the proposed rezone site, a portion of the regional commercial market would continue to be ineffectively accommodated. Consequently, it is probable that a regional commercial center use(s) would develop in the market area, outside the City of Renton. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development This alternative would not be guided by regional retail commercial policies or the same type of site plan review as are Development Scenarios "A" and "B," and Alternative 3. Although development in the B -1 zone is required to be examined first through the site plan review process as applicable, it is probable that proposed developments in the rezone area would be evaluated on an 61 incremental or "case -by- case" basis as individual development proposals are submitted to the City for permit review. Since some proposed buildings may be smaller than 4000 square feet, all development may not be subject to site plan review. These restrictions reduce the ability for the City to govern development to create unified themes, design schemes, and coordinated solutions to environmental impacts. This alternative could result in an uncoordinated mix of retail, office, and service uses on the proposed rezone site. Commercial retail uses likely would focus on office support (e.g., restaurants, office supply stores) as currently allowed in the M -P zone, rather than regional retail commercial (destination and comparison goods) uses. For illustrative purposes, it is expected that under the proposed rezone but with no Comprehensive Plan text Amendment, there would be 300,000 square feet of net leaseable office space and 570,000 square feet of net leaseable retail space that would be constructed. Pressures to develop nearby parcels in similar fashion could result in strip commercial areas. As under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, the existing warehousing and bulk storage uses east of East Valley Road would not be consistent with the commercial designation. Development pressures to rezone adjacent undeveloped land for retail, office, or service uses could be expected. Similar to No Action, the retail commercial demand in the market area could still remain unsatisfied. Consequently, it is probable that a regional commercial land use(s) would develop in the market area outside the City of Renton. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development Potential impacts under this development scenario would be similar to Development Scenarios "A" and "B." This alternative could be one -half the size of Southcenter and a little smaller than SeaTac Mall. Shopping would remain "comparison." This alternative could still be considered a regional shopping center, as defined by the Urban Land Institute. Although impacts could be less than those of Development Scenarios "A" and "B," the same development pressures on nearby properties could exist. Potential spin -off developments in the project site vicinity could create cumulative land use impacts. It is not expected that the market demand for regional commercial goods and services would be fully accommodated by this smaller -scale development. Consequently, it is probable that pressures for the development of regional commercial land use(s) would be created elsewhere in the project area, possibly within the City of Renton. MITIGATION MEASURES As mentioned in the Description of the Proposed Action, the site plan review process would serve to provide a means to mitigate many land use impacts that are attributed to specific development proposals that are presented in the future. Alternatively, a contract rezone could serve to eliminate or reduce land use impacts associated with the proposed development. 62 Additional wording could be added to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment or, alternatively, Regional Commercial Development Guidelines could be created in order to further define regional commercial activities and uses. For example, a transition buffer policy on the edges of land uses or zones could be enacted to increase compatibility of adjacent land uses in terms of scale and use. Language could be added to address signage, access, recreational, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, site layout, curb cuts, and landscaping to avoid the perception or development of strip commercial in the designated area. The provisions of these Regional Commercial Development Guidelines could be established in a new zoning category (e.g., B -2), which could limit the types of uses allowed under a Regional Commercial designation and could establish standards for regional commercial developments. This could, for example, limit professional service offices being located adjacent to auto sales and services. Because the vacant and underdeveloped area near East Valley Road and S.W. 34th Street is zoned M -P and is part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment text and map change, this area also could be rezoned B -1. This would extend the existing B -1 zone north to S.W. 34th Street. Without rezoning this portion, the site could develop in a manner similar to the commercial area south of S.W. 41st Street. 63 C. AESTHETICS This chapter discusses aesthetic features, views, architectural styles, and the visual character of the vicinity of the proposed site plan area (Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and proposed rezone site), and describes how these features could be affected by development under the Proposed Action. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The undeveloped, proposed rezone site can be seen through trees and brush from the eastern slopes of the generally level valley, as shown on Figure 12. The eastern slope of the Valley is easily seen from the proposed rezone site and dominates the eastern horizon (see Figure 13).. The valley slopes are moderately steep and support a variety of trees and'shrubs. Most of the single- family residences located on the eastern slopes are obscured from view by deciduous growth. The proposed rezone site also can be seen by motorists travelling southbound on SR -167, especially to those exiting at S.W. 41st Street. The western slope of the Valley, approximately two miles away, can be seen from the proposed rezone site; however, it is not as prominent a visual characteristic as the eastern slope. Among the most visually prominent features of the Valley floor are the width and alignment of the arterial system that serves the existing warehouses and offices. The main arterials of S.W. 41st and S.W. 43rd Streets, Lind Avenue S.W., and East Valley Road offer wide and straight alignments, which suggest an organized linear layout. These arterials form nodes of vehicular activity in the vicinity of the proposed rezone site. The most prominent landmark in the area is the Valley Medical Center on the east Valley slope. The modern architectural style of the building, the white exterior, and the large scale of the complex contrast visually with the natural vegetation of the area. The existing structures in the immediate vicinity of the proposed rezone site include recently- constructed office complexes and warehouses (see Figure 14). The warehouse structures are mainly of concrete, tilt -up construction. Where these structures front on the main arterials of S.W. 41st Street or Lind Avenue S.W., the buildings have incorporated landscaping elements at the structures' entrances. The office structures in the area generally share modern architectural design styles, including large glass facades at the entrances. These structures are typically two stories, with a few reaching five stories in height. Because much of the area in the vicinity of the proposed rezone site is flat and undeveloped, there is not a cohesive sense of location or identity for the area as a whole. The commercial developments along S.W. 41st Street present a visually distinct pattern from the Boeing warehouses only one block to the north. Contributing to this lack of visual cohesion is the general absence of vegetation or landscaping on the nearby undeveloped properties. 65 Proposed Rezone Site East Valley Road Figure 1,2 View of the Site from the East City of- Renton AS. IIA�TESSY • ■ — - - East Valley Road Figure 13 View from the Site to the East City of Renton SHAPIRO & ASSZIATESi f wl Figure 14 Examples of Development in the Vicinity of the Site City of Renton SHAPIRO& ASSZIATES2 68 No prominent landmarks have been identified, other than the east valley slope and the Valley Medical Center. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Proposed Action Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone would encourage development of a regional retail center instead of a manufacturing or office park development (Alternative 1: No Action). The policies proposed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment encourage regional commercial development to be characterized by a single theme or central focus, common parking facilities, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities. As described in Section IIIB, above, zoning code requirements provide guidelines for setbacks, building heights, and landscaping. In addition, 2% of the site would be landscaped in plant materials suitable for wildlife habitat indigenous to the valley floor. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment also specifies site plan review, which could serve as a means by which to unify the visual appearance of the regional retail commercial area. The design conditions that could be imposed during the site plan review process could result in a generally more aesthetically pleasing image than that of the surrounding developments. Depending on the type of development of the proposed rezone site, a cohesive sense of "place" could result. A contract rezone, which is encouraged by the proposed regional retail commercial policies, also could provide a means by which to influence the visual characteristics of the development. The scale of the development under the Proposed Action could be comparable to the Valley Medical Center. The presence of such a developed structure(s) on the proposed rezone site could be perceived as a significant visual impact. Development Scenario "A" The multiple structures that could be developed under this conceptual scenario could provide the proposed rezone site with a unified development (see Figure 4 for an illustration of conceptual site layout). While plans have not been developed for the architectural style, elevations, or building materials of this project, the developer intends that the final design be compatible with the existing modern architectural style of the area. The regional retail buildings could range from 20 feet to 50 feet in height; the structures could be at a scale commensurate with existing uses in the area. The final style would be determined during site plan review, and by the major users of the site (retail tenants). Views of the proposed rezone site from adjacent properties, the eastern slope of the Valley, and SR -167 could be affected to some degree, depending on final site plans and project architecture. Under Development Scenario "A," there could be an opportunity to provide a greater number of attractive visual elements. While functionally the same as Development Scenario "B," this design scenario could allow for 69 greater architectural emphasis in areas between buildings. The movement of people within the proposed rezone site could be encouraged by providing covered walkways and open space areas throughout the site. By the siting of open spaces and landscaped buffers, vehicular traffic could be separated from pedestrian traffic. The intent would be to reduce auto - pedestrian conflicts while offering open spaces to both employees and customers of the proposed commercial uses. Consistent with the proposed regional commercial policy, landscaping would be provided throughout the site, including along the site perimeter, to reduce the visual impact of development, and to enhance the appearance of the proposed rezone site from adjacent properties and viewpoints. Two percent of the area would be plant materials appropriate for wildlife habitat indigenous to the Valley floor. Development Scenario "B" The development that could result from the Proposed Action under Development Scenario "B" could be a single, two -story building (retail mall) with several small retail buildings near the perimeter of the site (see Figure 5). The buildings could range from 20 feet to 60 feet in height; final design and site layout would be determined during the site plan review process or to some extent via a contract rezone. The mall could be centrally located with common parking and landscaping provided around much of the retail center. Landscaping and signage could be designed to define the perimeter of the site and internal circulation of the parking area. Because the scale of the main structure could be larger than other buildings in the immediate vicinity, variations in building bulk, height, setbacks, materials, and landscaping could be incorporated to soften the architectural lines of the structure. The smaller, free - standing structures located on the northern and southern portions of the site (see Figure 5) could be designed to complement the designs of the main mall building. Views from adjacent properties and viewpoints also could be affected. Because views of the surface parking lots might not be interrupted by buildings, as with Scenario "A," the expansive parking areas could be a prominent visual feature of the site and could contrast more with adjacent land uses. Landscaping could be similar to Development Scenario "A "; however, public spaces or other public activity nodes and pedestrian amenities could be continued inside the main mall structure. Outside the mall structure, there may not be a similar opportunity (as with Development Scenario "A ") to provide visual attractions through architectural design and landscaping because the design does not incorporate separation or clustering of buildings. Alternative 1: No Action The office structures that could be developed under this conceptual development scenario probably could conform visually with existing uses in the area. Since the existing MP /MO Comprehensive Plan designation calls for site plan review, site layout could be determined at the time that a project application is received. (See Figure 6 for one possible development plan). To accommodate the projected office space, the building heights could be 70 from 45 feet to 150 feet, which would be allowed under the M -P zone (See Table 4 in Chapter IIIB). The architectural styles could be varied; however, they would be subject to site plan review and may interrelate with the office and warehouse uses found in the proximity of the site. Landscaping would be required and would include 2% of the area to be landscaped in plant materials to support wildlife indigenous to the Valley floor. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development Development under this alternative could result in a more visually disjointed pattern of land use (See Figure 7) than the scenarios described under the Proposed Action. Developing a number of smaller buildings with unrelated commercial uses on the proposed rezone site could perpetuate the diverse architectural styles and lack of visual cohesion that currently characterizes the area. Development standards, such as landscaping requirements, setbacks, and height limits, would apply to any proposed development under this alternative. The site plan review process would apply to any structures greater than 4000 square feet, which may not include all buildings under this scenario. Moreover, a site plan review process could be implemented incrementally as individual development proposals are presented to the City. This case -by -case review could diminish the opportunity for creating unifying design (site plan, architectural, landscaping) themes on the proposed rezone site. There probably could be no cohesive sense of location or orientation under this alternative. Disjointed internal access and circulation, and lack of common parking facilities could have greater adverse visual impact than a development under Development Scenarios "A" or "B," or Alternative 3. An absence of unified design themes and .image identification could result in a proliferation of individual signs although signage would be subject to the provisions of site plan review. Landscaping would be required including a provision for 2% of the area to be planted in species that would support wildlife indigenous to the Valley floor. Overall view impacts could be less predictable under Alternative 2. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development The development scenario described for this alternative could have the potential for visual characteristics similar to the Proposed Action (Development Scenario "B "); however, at a smaller scale (under 35 feet in height). This alternative likely could result in a less imposing structure than the Proposed Action and could result in less area devoted to common parking facilities. The same landscaping schemes identified for the Proposed Action could be used in the development of this alternative. Although the scale of the mall structure could be reduced to viewers of the site, the reduced building footprint could result in a more visually prominent appearance with the structure placed centrally in the proposed rezone site. The expanse of a common surface parking lot could be more apparent or, alternatively, a greater area of the site could be devoted to landscaping open space or other pedestrian- oriented amenities. As with the Proposed Action and Alternative 1: No Action, this alternative would include a site plan review process to guide site layout and visual 71 appearance. The proposal regional commercial policies also encourage contract rezones, which offer additional means by which aesthetic values could be influenced. MITIGATION MEASURES Site design, architectural style and materials, scale, bulk, height, landscaping and other project features would be reviewed during the site plan review process in order to address concerns relating to the visual appearance of the site. The applicant and City also may negotiate a contract rezone, which could influence the appearance of the site. A transition along the edges of any development between adjacent uses and zones could be implemented with lower- height buildings and appropriate building siting. Setbacks greater than the setback requirements established for the B -1 zone could lessen the visual presence of developed structures. Additional landscaping could be used to create a visual buffer between development and adjacent arterials. This would minimize the potential use of the store fronts or building facades for advertising to road traffic. The use of mature trees along the site perimeter could be incorporated to create a more effective visual screen than that created by ground cover or young trees and shrubs. The use of coniferous vegetation could provide less seasonal variation in site visibility for perimeter landscaping. Horizontal landscaping that is integrated into buildings' exterior designs also could be used to soften the mass of project buildings. Lighting for buildings and parking should be designed to avoid spillover to adjacent properties and roads. Lamping should be selected to promote true coloration of illuminated building and landscaping materials. Public space and employee amenities and the use of art and sculpture could be encouraged to provide a sense of community to the project. Unified but minimal signage also could provide image identification and could contribute to the visual integrity of the proposed rezone site. 72 D. TRANSPORTATION This section is summarized from a transportation study prepared by William E. Popp Associates. Refer to Appendix D for the transportation technical report. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Street System The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment area and proposed rezone site are surrounded by an urban arterial and freeway system that provides access to regional distribution networks in the Green River Valley (see Figure 15). Arterials in the study area are described below: . East Valley Road is a collector arterial that parallels State Route (SR) -167 and extends south from S.W. 16th Street through Kent, Auburn, Algona, Pacific, and Sumner. East Valley Road connects to the SR-167 southbound off- and on -ramps at its intersection with S.W. 41st Street. In the study area, the intersections of East Valley Road /S.W. 41st Street and East Valley Road /S.W. 43rd Street are signalized. . Lind Avenue S.W. is a four -lane minor arterial, with turn lanes at major intersections, that parallels East Valley Road. Lind Avenue S.W. borders the site on the west and extends north to S.W. 7th Street and south to S.W. 43rd Street. In the study area, the intersections of Lind Avenue S.W./ S.W. 39th Street, Lind Avenue S.W. /S.W. 41st Street, and Lind Avenue S.W. /S.W. 43rd Street are signalized. . Oakesdale Avenue S.W. is a five -lane principal arterial that extends from just north of S.W. 31st Street to S.W. 43rd Street. Oakesdale Avenue S.W. continues south into Kent as 80th Place South. . S.W. 27th Street is a three -lane arterial between East Valley Road and Lind Avenue S.W. with four lanes between Lind Avenue S.W. and Longacres Racetrack. At the intersection with Lind Avenue S.W., there are five lanes. However, there is a left turn provision at the arterial from East Valley Road to Lind Avenue S.W. and four lanes between between Lind Avenue S.W. and Oakesdale Avenue S.W. . S.W. 41st Street is four and five lanes wide and is designated a collector arterial. This street is a five -lane arterial from East Valley Road to Lind Avenue S.W. and a four -lane arterial from Lind Avenue S.W. to Oakesdale Avenue S.W. This street is accessed from the southbound SR -167 off -ramp and provides access to the SR -167 southbound on -ramp. 73 PROPOSED PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE REZONE . PLAN SITE AMENDMENT AREA Figure 15 Arterial System City of Renton LEGEND EXISTING ARTERIALS - ---- PLANNED ARTERIALS (1) SHAPIRO& ASSQEIATESE 74 . S.W. 43rd Street (South 180th Street) is a five -lane, principal arterial. S.W. 43rd Street, although it changes alignment and name, is a critical link in the east -west corridor extending from SR -99 on the west to S.E. Petrovitsky Road on the east. S.W. 43rd Street is accessed from the northbound SR -167 off -ramp and provides access to the SR -167 northbound on -ramp. Traffic Volumes and Level -of- Service Level -of- service (LOS) refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway and is based on vehicle operating speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, delays, safety, and driving comfort. LOS is represented by a letter on a scale of "A" to "F," with "A" representing the best service and "F" the worst. Table 5 decribes the traffic conditions representative of each LOS. Based on application of the VTIP link volume /capacity analysis, the available traffic count data in the study area indicate arterial operation at LOS D or better, with the exception of S.W. 43rd Street in the vicinity of the SR -167 ramp, which is estimated to operate at LOS E. The VTIP study established LOS E as the basis for determining roadway needs. The City of Renton currently considers LOS E and above acceptable. However, a new policy is being formalized for City Council adoption that could set the minimum acceptable LOS at D. Valley Transportation Improvements Program The current policy for transportation analysis in the Valley is the "Valley Transportation Improvements Program" Study (VTIP). The VTIP report, completed in July 1986, forecasts traffic conditions for the year 2000. The VTIP estimates that by the year 2000, the area will generate 150,000 average weekday traffic (AWDT) trips based on current land use designations. The VTIP also recommends roadway network improvements (Table 6) needed in the future." The land uses assumed in the VTIP for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and proposed rezone site are a mixture of office, warehouse - industrial, and commercial uses. The trip generation rate assumed for the site based on the proposed uses is 9,800 average weekday traffic (AWDT) trips. Trip assignment of this volume on the road system is shown in Figure 16. Since the VTIP uses the existing land use designations for its projections, it serves as the baseline condition for the analysis of significant traffic impacts as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone. Pedestrian Circulation Sidewalks exist along S.W. 43rd Street, East Valley Road, and S.W. 39th Street. Sidewalks also are in place where land is currently developed along S.W. 41st Street and Lind Avenue S.W. 75 Table 5 LEVEL -OF- SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Level -of- Service Description (LOS) A B C D F Free traffic flow. Speeds controlled by driver desires, speed limits, and roadway physical conditions. Average intersection delay is typically 16 seconds or less. Stable traffic flow, with operating speeds beginning to be restricted by traffic conditions. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speed. Average intersection delay is typically 16.1 to 22.0 seconds per vehicle. Stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by higher volumes. Average intersection delay is typically 22.1 to 28.0 seconds per vehicle. Approaches unstable flow with tolerable operating speeds maintained, but considerably affected by changes in operating conditions. Average intersection delay is typically 28.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. Unstable flow with low speed and momentary stop- pages. Average intersection delay is typically 35.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. Forced flow with low speed. Stop- and -go with stoppages for long periods is possible. Average intersection delay is greater than 40 seconds per vehicle. Source: Highway Research Board, "Highway Capacity Manual," 1965. Transportation Research Board "Circular 212," January 1980, Table 7, page 12. 76 Table 6 RECOMMENDED LANE IMPROVEMENTS PRESENTED IN THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM LINK LANES RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT TYPE OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. S.W. 43rd St.- Monster Rd. S.W. 43rd St. -E. Valley Rd. LIND AVENUE S.W. S.W. 43rd St. -S.W. 16th St. 5b 5a S.W. 43rd St. -E. Valley Rd. 5b S.W. 16TH STREET Monster Rd.- Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 3b Oakesdale Ave. S.W. -Lind Ave. S.W. 3 S.W. 19TH STREET Oakesdale Ave. S.W. -Lind Ave. S.W. 3 S.W. 27TH STREET W. Valley Hwy. - Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 5 Oakesdale Ave. S.W. -Lind Ave. S.W. Lind Ave. S.W. -E. Valley Rd. S.W. 34TH STREET Longview Ave. S.- Oakesdale Ave. S.W. S.W. 41ST STREET Longview Ave. S. -Lind Ave. S.W. S.W. 43RD STREET SR -167 RAYMOND AVENUE S.W. S.W. 19th St. -S.W. 34th St. LONGVIEW AVENUE S. S.W. 27th St. -S.W. 41st St. 5a 5 3a 3a Ramp 3a 3a New construction New construction Reconstruction of existing roadway where necessary New construction Reconstruction of existing roadway where necessary Reconstruction of existing roadway New construction New construction railroad crossing Reconstruction New construction SR -167 interchange/ new southbound on- ramp /northbound off -ramps New construction New construction New construction New construction New construction a Required City of Renton development ordinance(s) as standard frontage improvements for new development b Outside study area Source: CH2M Hill, 1986. 77 Bicycle Facilities Current bicycle use in the vicinity of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and proposed rezone site is primarily recreational. Lind Avenue S.W. is the only designated bicycle trail in the study area. A minor trail link has been established by the Sabey Corporation through the proposed rezone site that diagonally links S.W. 34th Street with Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Plans for development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Valley Comprehensive Plan, City of Renton Draft City -wide Comprehensive Master Trails Plan, and King County's General Bicycle Plan -Focus 1990, include a series of trails throughout the Valley floor. The Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies S.W. 34th Street (bordering the proposed rezone site on the north) and West Valley Highway (several blocks west of the site) as links to the expanded trail system. Ultimately, as indicated in King County's Plan, the trail system will connect to the Interurban Avenue Trail to the west and Lake Washington Boulevard 2.5 miles to the north. Railroad Facilities Railroad facilities in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and proposed rezone site include two Burlington Northern Railroad spurs at the northern end of the proposed rezone site (as shown on Figure 3 in Section II). The northern spur is used daily by several distribution warehouses north of the site. The southern spur begins west of the rezone site and ends near the eastern edge of the rezone site. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS All Alternatives Vehicle Trip Generation Trip generation refers to the trip count attributed to a particular land use. Trip generation for the Proposed Action and all alternatives was estimated using two sources: 1) Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) office trip generation rates and 2) the Puget Sound Council of Governments' (PSCOG) retail trip generation rates. Trip generation estimates for the Proposed Action and Alternatives and VTIP are shown in Table 7. 78 Table 7 YEAR 2000 VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION Alternative AWDT Rate ITE Baseline AWDT* ITE Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 VTIP Site Uses Office, Warehouse, Commercial (45 acres) 37.1 per 1,000 sf 37,100 10.9 per 1,000 sf 16,350 50.6 per 1,000 sf 15,180 retail 14.3 per 1,000 sf 8,150 office 37.2 per 1,000 sf 24,180 varies 9,800 *Average weekday traffic Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution refers to the process of connecting the generated trips to the appropriate destinations. Trips generated by the Proposed Action would be distributed on the regional and local street system similar to the VTIP trip distribution. Trip assignment refers to the process of routing the distributed trips over the street network to their respective destinations. Trip assignment (street routing of distributed trips) was analyzed using a refinement of the city of Renton's area -wide "T- Model" traffic model. This model routes trips over the calculated minimum time paths to destinations. The greatest increase in volumes would be on the E. Valley Road -S.W. 43rd Street -S.E. 179th Street routes. 79 Traffic Operations Average weekday trip volumes and LOS are presented in Figure 16. The impact of the new project generated trips on traffic operations are summarized in terms of volumes and level of service in Table 8. Although the Proposed Action traffic volume increase affects only a few links, it is sufficient to change the level of service. Differential Impacts Differential impacts refers to the difference between the VTIP projected traffic (see Affected Environment discussion), based on current land use designations, and the traffic volumes generated as a result of the different land use designations under the development scenarios for the Proposed Action and Alternatives. It is important to show the differences in order to determine the impacts as a result of proposed changes in the land use designation. Table 8 shows the traffic volumes for the VTIP and the development scenarios under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. Table 9 shows the percent change in the traffic volumes for the development scenarios under the Proposed Action and Alternatives as compared to the VTIP traffic. The Proposed Action development scenarios would have an overall traffic increase of 11.1% in the year 2000 as compared to the VTIP projections. Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian traffic in the study area under all alternatives would increase with an increase in the development. As development occurs, however, sidewalks and signalization would be completed increasing pedestrian safety in the area. As noted in the previous sections, the proposed regional commercial policies would require pedestrian- oriented amenities. These could serve to foster a greater pedestrian orientation in the vicinity of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and the proposed rezone site. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle traffic in the study area under all alternatives could increase with an increase in the development. As development occurs, however, bicycle improvements could be incorporated into the surrounding street system by the City of Renton. In addition bicycle trails could be developed as outlined in the Valley Comprehensive Plan, The City of Renton Draft City -wide Comprehensive Master Trails Plan, and King County's General Bicycle Plan -Focus 1990. If the above improvements were implemented, bicycle safety would improve in the study area. Railroad Facilities The railroad facilities on the proposed rezone site would require removal by Burlington Northern Railroad prior to site development. Several large warehouse -type businesses north of the proposed rezone site that reportedly use the spurs daily between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. could have impacts as a result of removal of the northern spur. Removal of the southern spur, which terminates on the proposed rezone site, would not have any impacts on businesses in the area. 80 - - • - PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AREA Figure 16 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES City of Renton A G M S 33,650 F 21,070 B 25,245 D 15,555 D 34,614 F 21,758 C 26,750 E 26,467 F 33,427 F 21,128 C 27.132 E 16,538 E 34,552 F 21,769 C 26,692 E 20,360 F 33,615 F 21,394 C 25,893 D 22,054 F B H N T 33,580 F 28,145 E 25,640 D 24,510 D 34,694 F 28,091 E 26,192 E 40,160 F 32,956 F 28,444 F 28,852 F 24,953 D 34,012 F 28,287 E 27,783 E 30,869 E 34,485 F 27,533 E 25,598 D 33,895 F C 1 0 U 32,450 F 11,925 B 23.545 D 54,820 - 32,131 F 13,870 C 22,983 C 70,339 - 33,412 F 11,978 B 26.293 E 55,118 - 32,706 F 12,862 C 26,549 E 61,058 - 31,898 F 13,056 C 23,860 D 59,383 - O J P V 31.950 F 30,540 F 17,010 A 15,250 D 31,478 F 33,374 F 17.010 A 15,154 A 32,848 F 30.253 F 17,010 A 15,371 A 32,094 F 30,662 F 17,010 A 14,882 A 31.229 F 30,823 F 17,010 A 14,820 A E K 0 28,770 E 27,920 E 39,190 F 28,316 E 29,805 E 40,694 F 28,376 E 29,306 F 39,190 F 28,342 E 28,995 E 39,190 F 28,300 E 28,362 E 39,190 F F L R 18,640 B 25,510 D 11,870 B 18,640 B 26,848 E 12,129 B 18,640 B 27,140 E 12.886 C 18,640 B 26,773 E 12,580 C 18,640 B 26.054 D 12,029 B LEGEND A 33,650 F vrw 34,614 F Proposed Action 33, F ANare 34,552 427 F Alurnanativtw• 2 1 33,615 F Atiernatlra L. Leval of Service SHAAPI�RO& ASS@ \ I ES% Link Table 8 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS -OF- SERVICE FOR VTIP AND DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES VTIP Proposal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Total 1 Total 1 Total 1 Total 1 Total 1 Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 B 12,129 B 12,886 C 12,580 C 12,029 B 34th - 41st 15,555 D 26,467 F 16,538 E 20,360 F 22,054 F 41st - 43rd 24,510 0 40,160 F 24,953 D 30,869 F 33,895 F Lind Avenue S. Grady Way - 16th 27,920 E 29,085 E 29,306 F 28,995 E 28,362 E 16th - 19th 25,510 D 26,848 E 27,140 E 26,773 E 26,054 D 19th - 27th 25,245 D 26,750 E 27,132 E 26,692 E 25,893 D 27th - 34th 25,640 D 26,192 E 28,852 F 27,783 E 25,598 D 34th - 43rd 23,545 D 22,983 C 26,293 E 26,549 E 23,860 D Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Grady Way - 16th 32,450 F 32,131 F 33,412 F 32,706 F 31,898 F 16th - 19th 31,950 F 31,478 F 32,848 F 32,094 F 31,229 F 19th - 27th 28,770 E 28,316 E 28,376 E 28,342 E 28,300 E co 27th - 34th 18,640 B 18,640 B 18,640 B 18,640 B 18,640 B N 34th - 43rd 21,070 B 21,758 C 21,128 C 21,769 C 21,394 C S.W. 27th Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,650 F 34,614 F 33,427 F 34,552 F 33,615 F Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 E 28,091 E 28,444 F 28,287 E 27,533 E Lind - E. Valley Road 17,010 A 17,010 A 17,010 A 17,010 A 17,010 A S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind 2 11,925 B 13,870 C 11,978 B 12,862 C 13,056 C Lind - E. Valley Road 15,250 D 15,154 A 15,371 A 14,882 A 14,820 A S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,580 F 34,694 F 32,956 F 34,012 F 34,485 F Oakesdale - Lind 30,540 F 33,374 F 30,253 F 30,662 F 30,823 F Lind - E. Valley Road 39,190 F 40,694 F 39,190 F 39,190 F 39,190 F E. Valley Rd - SR -167 54,820 - 70,339 - 55,118 - 61,058 - 59,383 - 1 LOS - Level -of- service with VTIP recommended number of lanes. 2 Southwest 41st Street from Lind Avenue South to East Valley Road shows an increase in LOS from D to A with an increase in volumes indicating an error. The VTIP LOS 0 calculation was incorrectly computed using three-lane roadway AWT capacity rather than the capacity for this existing five - lane section. The correct LOS on the link is A. With the addition of project volumes on this link, the LOS remains at A. Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. Table 9 YEAR 2000 SUMMARY OF PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES AT SELECTED LOCATIONS Link Proposed Alt.1 Alt. 2 Alt.3 Action E. Valley Road: S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 43rd Street Lind Avenue S.: S.W. GradyWay to S.W. 43rd Street Oakesdale Avenue S.W.: S.W. Grady Way to S.W. 43rd Street S.W. 27th Street: W. Valley Hwy to E. Valley Rd. 50.1% 5.9% 7.1% 9.5% 1.0% 1.2% 1.9% 4.1% S.W. 41st Street: 5.1% Oakesdale Ave. S.W. to Lind Ave. S. S.W. 43rd Street: 9.4% W. Valley Hwy to SR -167 ** Overall 11.1% 2.5% -0.3% 4.0% 22.9% 29.9% 7.9% 1.5% 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% -0.8% 4.6% 5.0% 3.7% 3.4% 6.3% 5.2% * The differential volume between project and VTIP divided by the * *background volume. Weighted average based on number of link segments within link. Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. 83 Proposed Action The Proposed Action (proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and proposed rezone) assumes 1,000,000 net square feet of retail use at maximum build -out. Trip generation, as shown in Table 7, could be 37,100 AWDT for the Proposed Action. Under the proposed Action, project traffic plus background traffic would decrease the level -of- service on seven links (refer to Table 8). These links are: . East Valley Road: From S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 41st Street; . East Valley Road: From S.W. 41st Street to S.W. 43rd Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: From S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 19th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: From S.W. 19th Street to S.W. 27th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: From S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 34th Street; . Oakesdale Avenue S.W.: From S.W. 34th Street to 43rd Street; . S.W. 41st Street: From Oakesdale Avenue S.W. to Lind Avenue S.W.. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 assumes 1,500,000 net square feet of office at maximum build -out. The vehicle trip generation for Alternative 1 could be 16,350 AWDT, as shown in Table 7. Under Alternative 1, project traffic plus background traffic would decrease the level -of- service on nine links (refer to Table 8). These links are: . East Valley Road: S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 34th Street; . East Valley Road: S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 41st Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. Grady Way to S.W. 16th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 19th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. 19th Street to S.W. 27th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 34th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 43rd Street; . S.W. Oakesdale Avenue: S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 43rd Street; . S.W. 27th Street: S.W. Oakesdale Avenue to Lind Avenue S.W.. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development Alternative 2 assumes 300,000 net square feet of retail use and net 570,000 square feet of office use. The trip generation for Alternative 2 could be 23,330 AWDT, as shown in Table 7. Project traffic for Alternative 2 plus background traffic would decrease the level -of- service on nine links as shown on Table 8. These links are: . East Valley Road: S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 34th Street; . East Valley Road: S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 41st Street; 84 . East Valley Road: S.W. 41st Street to S.W. 43rd Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 19th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. 19th Street to S.W. 27th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 34th Street; . Lind Avenue S.W.: S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 43rd Street; . Oakesdale Avenue S.W.: From S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 43rd Street; . S.W. 41st Street: From Oakesdale Avenue S.W. to Lind Avenue S.W. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development Alternative 3 assumes 650,000 net square feet of retail use. The trip generation for Alternative 3 could be 24,180 AWDT. Project traffic for Alternative 3 plus background traffic would decrease the level -of- service on four links as shown on Table 8. These links are: . East Valley Road: S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 41st Street; . East Valley Road: S.W. 41st Street to S.W. 43rd Street; . S.W. 41st Street: Oakesdale Avenue S.W. to Lind Avenue S.W.; . Oakesdale Avenue S.W.: S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 43rd Street. Alternative Traffic Impacts Methodology In an attempt to further refine the offsite impacts of the retail use, methodology was employed to account for the effect of trips that are diverted from other centers. That methodology consisted of developing a trip distribution model for comparison shopping trips on the proposed rezone site. The trip assignment from this model was subtracted from the proposal trip assignment to yield the net traffic impacts of the proposed action. This approach is plausible when one considers that there is a limited supply of shopping trips and shopping centers competing for those trips that are theoretically being made on a daily basis to one center or another. For example, a certain number of shopping trips traveling through the VTIP study area to other shopping destinations would be diverted to shop at the proposed regional center at the proposed rezone site resulting in only two study area boundary crossings as opposed to four without the center. The estimated net effect of this diversion at the VTIP study area boundary is a reduction of approximately 2,000 daily trip crossings. Further disaggregate analysis of PSCOG data and modeling experimentation is necessary to produce results that correlate with or explain the observed trip diversion and drop -in reduction percentages as quantified in ITE Journal articles. Some selected percentage comparisons are noted below in Table 10. The above data suggest that P.M. peak hour net offsite impacts and possibly the daily impacts of the proposed regional scale retail center could be substantially less than indicated by the analysis to this point. However, daily trip - making surveys of larger centers would be needed to determine the relationships of the above trip types over the full day. 85 Table 10 SHOPPING TRIP PERCENTAGES BY CENTER SIZE Center Size: 100 -200 ksf (1) PM PK Daily 100 -400 ksf (2) PM PK 1.2 msf (3) PM PK New Trips 4 Diverted Trip s (4) Trips(5) 7 6 27 36 66 58 49 35 40 25 (1) Kittleson, Lawton; ITE Journal, February 1987. (2) JHK & Associates; Maryland National Capital Park and Planning S3 Commission, February 1984. 4� Slade & Gorove; ITE Journal, January 1981. Trips on street system for another trip purpose and making route 5 ) diversion to shop. ( Trips on street system for another trip purpose passing by Center and stopping to shop. Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. 86 An alternative methodology of merit is the use of a regional model based forecast volumes for the background traffic component as opposed to use of the VTIP volumes as contained in - this report. The manual impact analysis approach used in the VTIP analysis results in substantial over- estimation of traffic, as 95% of the new generated trips in the study area are assumed to leave the study area. In reality, as many as one -third of the study area's new trips have been estimated by the Transpo Group's travel model to connect to other new land uses in the study area. This recent travel model as developed for the VTIP update effort is recommended (with adjustments for land use assumptions) for establishment of background traffic for project- specific analysis. MITIGATION MEASURES Off -Site Improvements The number of lanes needed on a link -by -link basis to provide a two -hour PM peak LOS E or better for the Proposed Action and the alternatives are shown in Table 11. Off -site improvements to mitigate the traffic as a result of conceptual development under the Proposed Action consist of two links on East Valley Road: 1) From S.W. 34th Street to S.W. 41st Street the lanes need to increase from three to four and, 2) From S.W. 41st street to S.W. 43rd Street the lanes need to increase from five to six. Transportation System Management (TSM The Valley Transportation Improvements Study makes several recommendations to achieve a reduction of single occupancy vehicles (SOVs): 1) high density development and, 2) limited parking supply. The study goes on to suggest that as individual parcels develop, implementa- tion of incentives programs to increase transit use and increase the average car occupancy would further reduce the SOVs. Some of the physical improvements that could be employed to meet this goal include high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and, improved transit service. Behavioral services include transit pass subsidies, preferential car /vanpool parking, and information services. Regional commitment to physical improvements to reduce SOVs is being accomplished by the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to widen and add HOV lanes to I -405 and SR -167. The city of Renton and adjacent jurisdictions are adding an HOV bypass lane on S.W. 43rd Street at the SR -167 northbound ramps. An interjurisdictional study undertaken by the South King County Transportation Task Force to evaluate the transportation and HOV needs in 87 Table 11 the S.W. 43rd Street - Petrovitsky Road -Carr Road Corridor produced the following strategies that could be employed to mitigate the impacts of development of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone: . Survey employee commuting patterns; . Disseminate information on transit, car /vanpool opportunities; . Promote transit, car /vanpools through rescheduled work hours to reduce peak hour traffic; . Appoint a Transportation Coordinator; . Report to the City annually on program plans and results; . Participate in the City task force on traffic problems. Clearly, the opportunities to employ transit and HOV incentives are greater in the more controlled environment of office or manufacturing situations as opposed to the more diverse environment of a retail center. However, some important opportunities for transportation management do exist in a retail setting. As an example, the following outlines what is being proposed by Town Center, a retail development in Redmond, as a program to reduce the percentage of employees and customers who commute to work or shopping in single- occupant vehicles. With their program, it is anticipated that 30% of all employees of the center will commute in other than single- occupant vehicles within two years after implementation of the program. Elements of their program are: . Transportation Coordinator: to be appointed prior to opening of the center; • . Community Information Center; . Ride match program; . Transit subsidy: at 25% of cost of transit to all employees; . Preferential parking: up to a maximum of 5% of the total parking spaces on site - vanpools will be subsidized at 25% for all employees of the center; . Flex -time (primarily for office worker - flex'time is generally inherent in retail scheduling); . Bicycle racks (racks will be available for a minimum of 7.5% of peak on -site employees). The Center will review results of its program with the City on an annual basis. Town Center is working with Metro to improve transit availability and expects the center to generate 1,000 to 2,000 daily transit person trips. The above example proposed by Town Center combined with the employer- developer policies for marketing HOV's, as proposed in the S.W. 43rd Street corridor analysis, provide a variety of mitigation options to be considered by the City of Renton for this proposal. If, for example, a target was set to have 30% of all employees commute other than in SOVs within two years after implementation of the TSM program, the Proposed Action could have SOVs reduced by 580. This 89 could improve the traffic circulation, in general. Table 12 presents the reduction that could be achieved under each alternative. Table 12 REDUCTION OF SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES (30% TARGET) Alternative Number of Employees Reduction of SOVs Proposed Action 2220 660 Alternative 1 6680 2,004 Alternative 2 3180 954 Alternative 3 1440 432 Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. Although 30% may be an optimistic target for retail in the Valley area, an aggressive program could achieve the desired results. Significant control and management of employee parking would be needed. The office alternatives for the site could provide the opportunity for the City to consider parking reductions as a means for encouraging fewer single- occupancy vehicles. In a Federal Highway Administration document titled, "Evaluation of Priority Treatments for High Occupancy Vehicles," they state: "Looking to the future, if the concept of priority tratments for HOV's is to make a significant regional impact, commitments are needed to pursue comprehesive area -wide HOV programs." Regional commmitments to HOV improvements are in the regional plan for I -405 and SR -167, with advanced design studies underway for 1 -405. Arterial HOV routes and developer incentive HOV programs as recommended in the Southwest 43rd Street /Petrovitsky HOV Analysis Report should continue to be "built -in" as the network and developments proceed. 90 E. WATER RESOURCES This chapter provides a description of the water resources on the proposed rezone site, and presents an overview of the downstream drainage conditions that could potentially be affected by development under the Proposed Action (Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone) and alternatives. This section also provides an overview of flood control plans for the lower Green River Valley and describes the wetlands located in the vicinity of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area and proposed rezone site. The impacts presented are illustrative of potential environmental effects of possible development concepts that could occur under the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone and do not necessarily describe all possible impacts associated with the strict interpretation of allowable uses. Any impact on water resources associated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone would be associated with subsequent site development. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Surface Water The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment area (about 68.5 acres) and rezone site (46.3 acres) are located in the Green River floodplain. The project area is flat with a maximum slope of 2 %. The proposed rezone site has a total relief of approximately three feet. There are no permanent surface water features on the proposed rezone site, although ponding of rainwater occurs in the low depression areas in the winter months. The project lies within the Springbrook Creek drainage basin, a sub -basin of the Black River watershed (see Figure 17). The Springbrook Creek basin covers an area of 15,000 acres and extends from Renton to Kent on the east side of the Green River floodplain. The headwaters of Springbrook Creek (locally known as Mill Creek) are formed by four east valley tributaries near Kent. The creek is the primary drainage for all surface water runoff in the area. Other surface water features located in the drainage basin include a number of wetlands and storm drainage swales. Springbrook Creek is located approximately 0.4 mile west of the proposed rezone site. In the vicinity of the project area, the creek has been altered; consequently it flows through a relatively straight channel. The average width is 30 feet, and bank height is approximately 10 feet to 15 feet. At the time of field investigation (September 1987: late summer in a low rainfall year when flows would be expected to be low), Springbrook Creek had a low flow with an approximate depth of 1.0 to 1.5 feet. Floods /Runoff and Absorption The rate of stormwater runoff is dependent upon site characteristics and the intensity of a storm event. Site characteristics refer to absorp- tion capability, which is dependent on several factors, including the type and amount of ground cover, slope gradients, and subsurface conditions. 91 iU/ Renton 1 1 I PROPOSED \ COMPREHENSIVE \ PLAN `AMENDMENT AREA 1 Pon/Aer Loy% v ■ i DRAINAGE BASIN c..‹. BOUNDARY 1 1 12 --) 1 3o I 516 C �� 11 ■ o 0 \\ '�inNO 1 \ 0 w 0 Lake Fenwick $/Or Loire 4 0049 Reference: Washington Department of Fisheries - agy Washington Streams Catalog, 1975. o0 Figure 17 Springbrook Creek Drainage Basin City of Renton 92 0 1/2 1Mi. Legend 4-0 River Miles Barriers — — — — Drainage Basin Boundary AS9F.S2 SHAPIRO & SW 16th St. �.- Proposed Oaksdale Alignment (1) Longaa Race 1 T 0) c c r 0 T Lind Ave nton Channel, SW 24th St. Alignment SW 27th St Longacres'' j Wetland Renton Wetland' • SW 34th St a, 0 ff' OrIIIia Pond SW 41st St to ot Is tp pp) •••••••• •••.•••• •••••••• ••••••••• •••••••• PROPOSED, .:REZONE:. . .' :..SITE;•;•• • • • • • • • • ••••••••• •••••••'•'•'•'•'• •••••••••'•'.'•'• •.•••.•. Yr ti•.•.• I. • • • M L Ile ' Panther Creek Wetland Figure 18 Surface Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed Rezone Site City of Renton Legend 0 Wetlands Proposed P -1 & P -9 Channels Source: City of Renton, August, 1987. 750 Scale in Feet 1500 SHAPIRO& ASSIDArESI 93 Ourtall into Springbrook Creek Figure 19 Stormwater Drainage System Features and Boundary of the Drainage Sub -Basin of the Proposed Rezone Area City of Renton Legend Storm Drainage Pipe Approximate Drainage Area 0 300 600 Scale in Feet SHAPIRO& ASSC{EIATES`= 94 Springbrook Creek and P -1 Channel The proposed rezone site has been identified on the Federal Insurance Administration's 1981 Flood Insurance Rate Map of the City of Renton, Washington as being outside the limits of the 100 -year flood boundary. The site area is located on the Green River floodplain; however, due to dikes along the Green River, the site is protected from minor flood events. Currently, Springbrook Creek is the main channel used for flood control purposes in this area of the basin. Two flood control channels, P -1 and P -9, have been proposed and are under construction as part of a joint effort between the City of Renton and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (see Figure 18). The P -1 channel has been completed from S.W. Grady Way north to the Black River and Springbrook Creek has been diverted into it. The channel alignment and design have been determined south of S.W. Grady Way to S.W. 43rd Street; however, no construction of the channel has occurred in this segment. Springbrook Creek will be diverted into the flood control channels north of the intersection of P -1 and P -9 (S.W. 24th Street), while to the south, the Springbrook Creek channel will remain. Drainage Sub -basin Stormwater collection systems installed by the City of Renton define several separate drainage sub - basins. The proposed rezone site is located entirely in a single storm drainage sub - basin that is approximately 145 acres in size (see Figure 19). The sub -basin stormwater collection system was designed to accommodate the requirements anticipated from buildout of the sub - basin; the system's outlet is a 60 -inch pipe that discharges into Springbrook Creek at S.W. 34th Street. This pipe should be adequate during a 25 -year peak storm event for the basin area, even without on -site detention (Shapiro, 1981). Collector pipes adjacent to the site range in size from the 60 -inch pipe at S.W. 34th Street /Lind Avenue S.W. to the 21 -inch pipe in East Valley Road (see Figure 19). The entire rezone site has been filled with granular soil material. The site does not exhibit signs of sheet wash, gullying, or erosion. Precipitation is assumed to infiltrate into the soils for all but the most intense storms, but will pond in the winter months. At the present time, the estimated peak rate of stormwater runoff from the site is 11 cubic feet per second. Based on the pipe sizes and current land use and drainage, the existing stormwater collection system in the area streets should have adequate capacity to accomodate these flows. Water Quality Springbrook Creek Water quality of Springbrook Creek is routinely monitored by Metro. The water quality monitoring station for Springbrook Creek is at the S.W. 16th Street bridge near Longacres Racetrack. Water quality analyses of Springbrook Creek (Metro, 1987) indicate that the overall water quality is 95 poor. Of the 21 streams in King County monitored by Metro, Springbrook Creek's values for turbidity, suspended solids, and total - phosphorus were among the worst measured. Ammonia concentrations in Springbrook Creek had the highest loading rate of all the basins surveyed by Metro, and conductivity was high for a freshwater stream. Only temperature and nitrate - nitrite were within the typical ranges. These data collected by Metro indicate that Springbrook Creek does not meet Ecology's goals for Class A waters. Two critical water quality problems occur in Springbrook Creek: chronic low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, and metals contamination. Low oxygen problems in the creek may be attributed primarily to the influx of low- oxygen groundwater, combined with the lack of gradient in Springbrook Creek (Metro, 1987). Metal concentrations that consistently exceed the criterion level include zinc, cadmium, copper, and nickel. Improving Springbrook Creek water quality is a major goal of several groups and agencies, including the Muckleshoot Indian tribe. The Green River Basin, of which Springbrook Creek is a sub - basin, has been identified as the priority watershed in King County for the control of non -point pollutants under the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Although cleanup activities have begun at several locations in the watershed, changes in water quality at the mouth of the stream have not yet been detected (Metro, 1987). Drainage Sub -basin The project site lies within an approximate 145 -acre sub -basin of Springbrook Creek. Although specific water quality sampling has not been conducted for this sub - basin, estimates of pollutant type and loading rates can be assumed from measurements conducted in drainage basins with similar land uses. Expected pollutants in storm runoff would be derived from street surfaces and possibly from storage tanks and manufacturing uses in the basin; these pollutants could include sediment, metals, petroleum derivatives and grease, hazardous materials, and fertilizer and herbicide residues. Because the proposed rezone site currently is undeveloped, most rainfall is expected to infiltrate into the soils. Storm runoff from the site is expected to occur only during peak events and would be collected by the existing storm drainage system. Pollutants in storm runoff associated with the site are expected to be limited to sediment. Wetlands and Habitat As defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, wetlands are areas that are saturated or inundated at a frequency and duration that supports vegetation that is typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands provide important habitat, improve water quality, and provide flood storage and stormwater control. Urban development in the Valley has resulted in filling of many acres of wetlands, thereby affecting their overall functional values. 96 Wetlands in the Green River Valley and in Renton have been mapped by the City (Williams and Canning, 1981) and by Shapiro and Associates, Inc. (1981). Wetlands or saturated soil conditions were not observed on the proposed rezone site during initial site visit in September 1987. Although the site was most likely a wetland prior to its being filled, the granular fill soils are sufficiently compacted to allow ponding in some locations of the site. Within a half -mile north of the proposed rezone site, there are nine identified wetlands (see Figure 18), a majority of which are located adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Because of the water quality of Springbrook Creek, Metro has rated the suitability of this stream for salmon habitat as "poor." This poor rating has been applied to the stream because of low levels of dissolved oxygen, elevated summer temperatures and poor spawning substrate. The benthic population density was the lowest in all streams surveyed. (Benthics are comprised of aquatic insects, primarily amphipods and midges, which have a high tolerance for organic pollution.) The proposed rezone site is vegetated with grasses, Scot's broom, and a few stands of young cottonwood trees. The wildlife populations on the proposed rezone site are limited by the disturbed habitat and the proximity to existing development and human activity. This site provides habitat for sparrows, finches, killdeer, moles, shrews and other rodents. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following discussion of probable impacts of the proposed rezone is based on the conceptual development scenarios described in Section II. In order to assess the potential impacts on water resources and to compare the potential impacts among alternatives, several assumptions have been made on existing facilities and potential new site development: . the amount of stormwater runoff generated from the site is related to land use and the amount of impermeable surface coverage; . the maximum impermeable surface coverage that could be added to the proposed rezone site is based on landscaping requirements under existing zoning or under the proposed rezone; . the rate and volume of stormwater runoff was calculated by the rational method and is based on the assumptions mentioned above; . any development occuring on the proposed rezone site would have on -site stormwater detention facilities per City regulations. The existing stormwater drainage system that serves the sub -basin was designed to accomodate stormwater flows even without on -site detention (SHAPIRO, 1981); consequently, the system should have adequate capacity to accommodate development of the site. However, it should be noted that this assumption is not based on an engineering analysis. Estimates of pollutant types for the project site are based on water quality studies in areas with similar land uses (PSWQA, 1986; Novotny, 1981; Farris, et al., 1979; Galvin & Moore, 1982). 97 Proposed Action Development Scenario "A" Surface Water, Floods, Runoff and Absorption. Development Scenario "A" could result in a larger building footprint than the other alternatives (see Table 2 in Section II). The proposed rezone site would be cleared of vegetation to accommodate the proposed development, thus affecting the infiltration, interception and evapotranspiration characteristics of the property. The conversion of the proposed rezone site to impervious surfaces, such as rooftops and parking areas, in effect, would create new "source areas" for stormwater runoff. Areas that previously contributed only to gradual and filtered subsurface storm flow would be converted to sources of direct and rapid runoff. Storm runoff would need to be controlled, so that storm runoff peaks do not exceed the capacity of the off-site stormwater control system. Because new developments would require detention /retention facilities, development of the proposed rezone site would not have an effect on off -site flooding for storm events that are less than the "design storm." Development could however, have cumulative adverse effects on off -site flood hazards for storm events that exceed the design retention /detention capacity. Estimated on -site peak storm runoff rates for a 25 -year event could increase from 11 cubic feet per second (cfs) to about 47 cfs, based on the probable impervious surface coverage (92% for B -1), of about 42.6 acres. The rate of discharge could be controlled to reflect pre - developed conditions through on -site detention. On -site detention could be provided either by an underground storage tank and /or by surface detention. Surface detention could allow for some groundwater infiltration, whereas closed systems would not provide any recharge opportunity. Approximately 68,000 cubic feet of on -site detention would be required, based on the 92% impervious surface assumption. With the addition of on -site detention, stormwater would be released slowly to the off -site drainage system and Springbrook Creek, thereby extending the duration of the storm runoff period. Water Quality. The impacts of project development of the proposed rezone site on surface water quality could be similar to existing water quality impacts created by the existing surrounding land uses. The greatest impact on surface water would occur during site preparation when potential for erosion and subsequent sedimentation would be the most pronounced. Sedimentation is typically affected by factors such as the timing and phasing'of construction, the degree of vegetation removal on a site, and the effectiveness of erosion control measures. Once developed, the quality of stormwater runoff from the proposed rezone site would change. The proposed rezone site could generate pollutants typical of parking area runoff, including oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients, sediment, and litter. The concentration of these pollutants can vary widely, depending on the season, storm intensity and duration, and preceding number of dry days. If fertilizers and /or herbicides are applied to landscaped areas, stormwater runoff from these areas could include elevated quantities of organic and inorganic pollutants. 98 Most of these impacts can be reduced substantially with the implementation of effective site planning, drainage plans, and erosion control plans. The type and concentration of pollutants that could be expected under the development scenario under the Proposed Action may be of less concern than those of adjacent land uses (or those resulting from the No Action Alternative) because retail uses would not have the same potential for polluting discharges as certain types of manufacturing land uses (as could be allowed under the current M -P zoning category). Some retail uses, however, could result in inorganic pollutants; control of these pollutants might best be addressed during the site plan review process. Because the project would represent about 5.5% of the drainage sub -basin and 0.3% of the Springbrook Creek drainage basin, the contribution of pollutants and relative impact on stream habitat values are considered not to be significant. The project would not be expected to adversely affect the benthic or fisheries habitat of Springbrook Creek. Wetlands and Habitat. Development under any of the alternatives would remove existing vegetation on the proposed rezone site; however, no significant vegetation communities or wildlife species would be adversely impacted. Construction activity would not be expected to have a direct impact on existing wetlands in the area. Any wildlife that inhabits the proposed rezone site, such as small mammals, would be temporarily displaced to nearby areas. No significant terrestrial wildlife communities would be affected since the portions of the proposed rezone site that would be developed are already substantially altered and the site is adjacent to already developed areas. Song birds would be forced to migrate, but many of the species are tolerant of human activities and would reinvade following relandscaping and development of the 2% native vegetation areas. Because of the existing poor water quality of Springbrook Creek, significant impacts on aquatic habitat would not be expected. Contaminants from development of the proposed rezone site would include sediments, oil, grease, and other pollutants associated with construction activities and runoff from development. Development Scenario "B" Surface Water, Floods, Runoff and Absorption. This design option could result in the same amount of impervious and landscaped area as Scenario "A ", assuming maximum allowable impervious surface of 92% that applies in the B -1 zone. Because this alternative could have 100,000 square feet less building footprint area than Scenario "A," more parking or internal roads are assumed for this alternative. The estimated peak rate of storm runoff from a 25 -year storm would be assumed to be about the same as Scenario "A." Water Quality. This alternative could have similar impacts on water quality as described under Scenario "A." 99 Wetlands and Habitat. Development under this Scenario could have similar impacts as described under Scenario "A." Alternative 1: No Action Surface Water, Floods, Runoff, and Absorption For the proposed rezone site, the M -P zone development standards allow impermeable surface coverage of 88% of the site, or about 40.7 acres. Because the allowable impervious coverage is less, the total landscaped areas would probably be greater for this Alternative, compared with the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3. The differences, however, would not be significant: 5.4 acres of landscaping for Alternative 1, compared to 3.5 acres of landscaping for the Proposed Action. Approximately 65,000 cubic feet of on -site detention would be required, based on the maximum allowable impervious surface allowance. On -site detention could be provided by an underground storage tank (large diameter pipe) and /or by surface detention, as described under the Proposed Action. Water Quality The range of allowable land uses under the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation is more diverse than could be allowed under the Proposed Action (See Table 3 for a comparison of uses allowed in the Manufacturing Park and Business District zones). Uses under the existing zoning could include bulk storage, warehousing, and manufacturing. These allowable uses could have a greater potential for impacting water quality than uses allowed under the Proposed Action. For example, Metro identified pollutant - loading rates for phosphorous and suspended solids to be greater from industrial land uses than from commercial land uses (Farris, et al., 1979). The water quality impacts associated with development described under Alternative 1: No Action (office buildings) generally would be restricted to parking lot and street surfaces. Any change in traffic volumes also could affect the quality of surface water runoff. The development of more landscaped areas and less impervious surface than the Proposed Action would result in potentially less pollutants associated with paved surfaces (i.e., oil and grease, sediment, and metals), although slightly higher loading of pollutants associated with landscaping (fertilizers and herbicides) could be expected. Because the differences in total area of landscaping and im- pervious surface coverage is not significant, no significant differences in total pollutant loads would be expected from these alternatives. Wetlands and Habitat Under this alternative, there would be a slightly greater area devoted to landscaping, which could provide greater habitat than under the Proposed Action. 100 Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development Surface Water Development under this alternative could result in the same allowable impervious surface coverage and amount of landscaped areas as the Proposed Action, although more land would be committed to internal streets and parking areas. The rate and volume of stormwater generated on -site likely would be comparable to that under the Proposed Action. Because each lot or retail development could be constructed without an integrated plan under this alternative, the stormwater control measures may not be as effective as under the Proposed Action. Water Quality Pollutants associated with this alternative could be similar to those under the Proposed Action. The potential for off -site water quality impacts, however, may be greater without an integrated stormwater control plan, because this alternative could have many separate storm systems that may not be maintained as effectively as would an integrated system (e.g., with the Proposed Action or Alternative 3). Similar to Alternative 1: (No Action) traffic volumes also could affect water quality to some extent. Wetlands and-Habitat Development under this alternative could have similar impacts on wetlands and habitat as under the Proposed Action. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development Because the total area of landscaping and impervious surface coverage may not be significantly different than the Proposed Action, no distinguishible differences in the amount of stormwater runoff, total pollutant loads (except for less vehicle - generated pollutants [a relatively unimportant source]), or impact on wetland and habitats could be expected from this alternative. MITIGATION MEASURES Site development controls and restrictions would reduce the impacts of increased stormwater runoff and non -point pollutants in storm runoff waters. Methods to control stormwater flows and pollutants during construction activities consist of vegetative controls, structural controls, and management measures. A detailed drainage plan would be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Public Works Department prior to final approval of any building or construction permits. This plan would include temporary and permanent measures for erosion and sedimentation control. The temporary measures would be in place prior to any ground work, and would be maintained throughout construction. 101 Control of Construction - Related Water Quality Impacts Good construction management and planning are key to controlling erosion from any construction site. Management decisions that should be employed during site development include the following: . Avoid exposing soils during periods that have the highest potential for erosive rainfall. . Limit grading to areas proposed for immediate construction. . Immediately seed any areas to be landscaped in order to minimize erosion potential. . Keep construction equipment out of areas provided with surface and subsurface drainage controls. . Develop and carry out a regular maintenance schedule for structural controls. . Limit construction traffic to access roads and designated travel routes, and provide a staging area for equipment and workers. Structural erosion /sedimentation controls could consist of sedimenta- tion ponds and sediment barriers. Structural practices are not as effective as vegetative controls; however, they do provide an additional measure to capture sediment before•it leaves the construction site. Temporary drainage control measures could include a perimeter berm around the project area, and broad, grass -lined roadside drainage swales. Drainage swales collect storm runoff in non - erosive flows and aid in direct infiltration and recharge, thereby reducing erosion and sedimentation hazards. Temporary sediment barriers could be designed to filter sediment from unconcentrated runoff, thereby preventing that sediment from leaving the site. Materials commonly consist of hay bales, gravel filter dikes, or fabric filter fences. Hay bales and fabric filter fences should be placed around the storm drains to prevent sediment discharge to Springbrook Creek. Frequent inspections and diligent maintenance are required for effective sediment control. Vegetative controls could include temporary seeding and planting of permanent landscape vegetation strips in graded and cleared areas. Vegetative controls are the first line of defense in preventing erosion by protecting the soil surface from raindrop impact and overland flow of storm runoff. Vegetative buffers reduce runoff velocities and act as a filter in trapping sediment. Permanent Stormwater and Drainage Improvements Specific on -site stormwater detention plans have not been prepared. The City of Renton has adopted the guidelines of the King County storm 102 drainage ordinance for stormwater control; as such, detention would be required. An underground and /or surface system connected to the off -site storm drain would be developed. Storm detention should be provided for at least a 25 -year event to reduce off -site impacts of storm peaks. The stormwater control system would be designed to direct the parking lot runoff into catch basins. Creating and maintaining landscaping and open space vegetation would reduce the potential of pollutants entering the storm system from the developed site. The stormwater conveyance and detention system should not exceed the current runoff rate into Springbrook Creek and should reduce contamination by sediments, oil, and grease. By including a detention pond in the drainage plan, heavier or larger fractions of suspended particulates, including sediment and other pollutants, would settle out. Oil and grease traps should be included in the detention pond and drainage system. The effectiveness of the basins, silt traps, and oil /grease separators would be dependent largely upon careful construction and regular maintenance. A maintenance plan should be prepared for approval by the City of Renton. Surface detention should be incorporated into stormwater control plans where possible. Potential storm drainage control detention could include a series of shallow swales located along the internal roads. Shallow swales would provide the necessary storm detention and could serve as biofiltration, thereby reducing the pollutant loads to off -site receiving waters. In addition, the swales could be incorporated into the landscape plans and provide wildlife habitat. 103 F. UTILITIES The utilites discussed under this section include Water, Sanitary Sewer, Natural Gas, and Electricity. The Stormwater utility requirements are discussed in Section III E., above. This section briefly characterizes the utility system serving the proposed rezone site and assesses the effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on the utilities. Due to the progammatic nature of the Proposed Action and alternatives, the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action and each of the alternatives are considered by evaluating the conceptual development scenarios that could be allowed. Complete descriptions of each of these programmatic actions and the scenarios are found in Section II. WATER Affected Environment Water service to the proposed rezone site is provided by the municipal water department of the City of Renton, which draws its water from three municipal well sites. The well site closest to the proposed rezone site is Springbrook Springs on Talbot Hill. As shown on Figure 20, the proposed rezone site is served by a 16 -inch water main along Lind Avenue S.W. on the western boundary of the site. A 12 -inch water line forms a loop around the remaining perimeter of the proposed rezone site. These lines have been estimated to have an existing static water pressure of 75 pounds, which is considered adequate to serve the existing uses in the area (Haight, 1987). The 1987 six -year Capital Improvement Plan for the City does not identify any proposed capital improvements to the existing water system in the area of the proposed rezone site. Significant Impacts Development under the Proposed Action or alternatives would result in water consumption that would be dependent on the actual uses developed on the site. Typical rates of water consumption for various types of uses are presented in Table 13. (Although rates vary widely, they are useful in estimating expected water consumption for individual users.) 105 12" • St. • 8" • • PROPOSED REZONE SITE • • • East Valley Lift Station 54_4L5LSL -- ,2" r 12" • • • . . 1 • 7Vdcxriet∎i 24" City of Kent C of Renton 12" • cc I'ii 111 Metro Trunk Line Hospital Pump Station -- I Figure 20 Existing Water and Sewer Service City of Renton Legend Existing Water Service Existing Sewer Service SHAPIRO& ASSZ1ATFS` 106 TABLE 13 TYPICAL RATES OF WATER CONSUMPTION BY DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL USER TYPES RANGE OF FLOW USER UNIT GAL /UNIT - DAY Automobile Service Station Per Vehicle Served 11 - 16 Hotel Person 53 - 106 Motel Person 106 - 159 Private Dwelling Dwelling 53 - 159 * Office Person 11 - 16 Restaurant Person 32 - 48 Seat 32 - 48 * ** Store Person 11 - 16 Indoor Theater Per Seat, Two Showings Per Day 3 - 5 * "Person" in office and store uses is assumed to mean employee and does ** not include customers. Estimated based on wastewater flow, Table 2 -8, Wastewater Engineering. Source: Metcalf, and Eddy, 1979. In order to project the total daily consumption that could result from development of the proposed rezone site, an average rate of 14.0 gallons per employee per day is used (Metcalf, and Eddy, 1979). This rate is applied to an estimated number of employees that could be anticipated under various development scenarios (see Section III H., below, for a description of the process used to calculate employment). It should be noted that these estimates do not account for consumption by customers of the proposed retail commercial uses and, therefore, understate consumption. An estimate of water consumption based on gross building area is shown in Table 14. This second methodology accounts for customers and, therefore, results in consumption estimates considerably greater than the employee -based method. For further consideration, the Seattle Water Department estimates that an assembly of uses "similar in size and diversity to Northgate" consumes an average of 120,000 gallons per day (Gamponia, 1988). Based on information provided by representatives of the City of Renton Department of Public Works, it is assumed that the existing water system serving the proposed rezone site is adequate to meet the increased needs described in Table 14. 107 Table 14 SUMMARY OF WATER CONSUMPTION IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Consumption Based on Employees Consumption Based on Square Footage * Consumption Gross Bldg. Area Consumptiop Alternative Employees (Gal /Day ) (square feet) (Gal /Day ) Proposed Action 2,220 31,100 1,100,000 (Retail) 166,500 (Development Scenarios "A" and "B") Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 6,680 93,500 3,180 44,500 1,440 20,200 1,670,000 (Office) 330,000 (Retail) 630,000 (Office) 720,000 (Retail) 140,300 102,400 108,000 * For explanation of how employee estimates were derived, see Economics Section of this Draft EIS. ** Estimated at 14.0 gallons per employee per day. * ** Estimated at .084 gallons per square foot per day for office and .150 gallons per square foot per day for retail. ** Sources: Metcalf and Eddy, 1979. * ** City of Renton. 108 The amount of water required to meet the fire flow standards of the City of Renton could depend on the type of construction and uses in any buildings. Buildings constructed of flammable materials could require greater minimum water flow rates than concrete structures. As these structures increase in height, greater static pressure is required to maintain the minimum flow rates. The Fire Department's Master Plan does not identify the proposed rezone site as an area with fire flow problems (City of Renton, 1987b). It also should be noted that as part of the development review process, the Fire Department examines proposed projects with respect , to their specific fire flow requirements. If the Department determines that the expected flow would be less than that required by the Uniform Fire Code, then the developer must commit to specific improvements as part of the development approval process (City of Renton, 1987b). Proposed Action The impacts on water use are assumed to be the same for both develop- ment scenarios under the Proposed Action, as described in Section II. Therefore, the following analysis does not distinguish between development scenario impacts. It should be noted, however, that the Development Scenarios include different building heights, which could affect static pressure requirements for fire flows. The proposed rezone could promote the development of retail commercial uses intended to serve a regional market. These uses are assumed to consist largely of retail sales of dry goods and general merchandise. The primary water users would be the employees and customers of retail businesses, the fire suppression system and landscaping requirements. The water consumption figures express water needs that result from employee consumption, and do not indicate pressure or flow requirements of the City of Renton Fire Codes. Because static pressure requirements for fire fighting purposes are greater for structures of greater height, the height of developed buildings could affect the provision of water service for fire protection purposes. The maximum allowable height in the B -1 zone is 95 feet, with provision for exeeding the height limit through the Con- ditional Use Process. As conceptualized, Development Scenario "A" could have buildings varying in height from 20 to 50 feet and Development Scenario "B" could have buildings ranging from 20 to 60 feet. Actual static pressure requirements could depend upon the heights of the buildings and the fire flow requirements, as discussed above. Water consumption also could be required for landscaped areas, which, based on maximum impervious surface estimates for the B -1, is calculated to be approximately 3.5 acres. This irrigation could have an important influence on overall water consumption. Alternative 1: No Action Retention of the existing zone of Manufacturing Park (M -P) on the proposed rezone site would permit a variety of manufacturing, service, and professional service businesses, and general office uses. The greatest impact on water consumption could occur if certain manufacturing and 109 processing uses that require large amounts of water in the production process are developed. Manufacturing uses could require differing amounts of fire flow to meet safety and fire code standards as well. The final determination of the uses that could be allowed and the amount of water that these uses would require would be evaluated when development plans are submitted to the City. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that an office complex, as described in Section II, would be developed. This complex could include a variety of administrative, professional, medical, financial, and business offices. The projected water consumption of 140,000 gpd assumes employee and customer water consumption and does not account for water that could be required for fire flow. Any changes in this assumption would increase the amount of water required by the site, although it is expected that any water not used for personal consumption would not be significant. As the height of any structures built under this alternative increases, additional static pressure may be required to meet minimum fire flow rates. The Development Scenario presents building heights in a range between 45 and 150 feet, although provision for greater building height is made in the Zoning Code (see Table 4). Under this alternative if extensive landscaping is incorporated into the final site design, additional water could be required. Because the limitation on the maximum allowable impervious surface is less under the M -P zone than the B -1 zone, the amount of the site that is devoted to landscaping under Alternative 1 (approximately 5.4 acres) could be greater than under the Proposed Action, thereby increasing the total area that could be irrigated. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development A rezone of the proposed rezone site to B -1 without retail commercial policies could allow development of any commercial uses in the B -1 Zone (see Table 3). In addition to restaurants, there are a number of other commercial uses permitted under the B -1 Zone that could consume large amounts of water if developed. These uses include car washes, hotels, health spas and gyms, and retail food outlets that have food processing as an accessory use. The consumption estimate of 102,000 gpd does not account ' for those commercial users with greater rates of water consumption. Since the maximum allowable height under this alternative is 95 feet, increases in static pressure to meet minimum fire flows could be necessary if several tall buildings were constructed. Under this alternative, water would be required to irrigate the estimated 3.5 acres of landscaping that could be incorporated into the final design. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development The analysis of impacts on water that could be expected to result from development of this alternative assumes that the smaller scale of retail uses would impose proportionately smaller impacts than those associated with 110 Development Scenario "A" or "B." Any change in this assumption may affect the amount of water required for the development of a mall under this alternative. Building height could be comparable to the Proposed Action (20 -35 feet compared with 20 -50 feet), thus resulting in somewhat lesser minimum fire flow requirements and static pressure. The maximum impervious surface area is the same as the Development Scenarios "A" and "B" and Alternative 2. Assuming the remainder of the site is devoted to landscaping, results in an estimated 3.5 acres of landscaping requiring irrigation. If a smaller scale project results in less parking, then development of this alternative could leave a greater area available for landscaping, which could require greater amounts of water for grounds maintenance. Mitigation Measures Water conservation measures could be incorporated into the final building designs, and water conservation by building tenants could be encouraged. Water - efficient plumbing fixtures could be used throughout any development. Separate water meters for individual tenants also could promote water conservation through user awareness. Water- efficient landscaping techniques, such as materials used to control temperature and mulching to enhance water retention, could be incorporated. Drought - tolerant plant species, such as mountain ash, pine, spruce and flowering plum, could be encouraged along with water - efficient irrigation systems, such as drip watering and /or timed watering. SANITARY SEWER Affected Environment Wastewater collection in the proposed rezone site is provided by the City of Renton Department of Public Works. Metro treats wastewater collected by the City of Renton. The existing wastewater conveyance system was designed in the mid 1970s to accomodate sewage collected from the combination of warehouse and light industrial uses then planned in the area. According to the Renton Public Works Department, "The sewer lines serving (the proposed rezone site) were designed for (warehouse use)" (Monaghan, 1987). Due to the level terrain of the Green River Valley floor, lift stations are required to supplement the gravity flow of wastewater into Metro lines. An eight -inch line runs along S.W. 41st Street on the southern limit of the proposed rezone site from the existing Koll Business Park to the southeast corner of the proposed rezone site. Wastewater from the north and west boundaries of the proposed rezone site flows by gravity to the East Valley Lift Station through approximately 2,050 feet of eight -inch lines. The lift station pumps this wastewater, as well as wastewater collected from north of the site, into a 12 -inch gravity line that runs approximately 2,100 feet south along the East Valley Road to its intersection with S.W. 41st Street, where it ties into the Metro trunk line (see Figure 20). 111 TABLE 15 AVERAGE WASTEWATER GENERATION RATES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF USERS User Unit Private Dwelling Person Automobile Service Station Employee Hotel Employee Industrial Building Employee (Excluding Industry And Cafeteria) Motel Person 24 - 40 Office Employee 10 - 20 Restaurant Meal 2 - 4 * Store - Department Employee 10 - 20 Wastewater Generated Gal /Unit -Day 50 -92 9 - 16 40 - 58 8 - 17 Shopping Center Employee 10 - 20 * * Estimated based on average between Table 2 -8 in Wastewater Engineering by Metcalf and Eddy and Table III in Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers by the Water Pollution Control Federation. Sources: Metcalf and Eddy, 1979; Water Pollution Control Federation, 1969. Significant Impacts An increase in wastewater flows to the sanitary sewer facilities would result from any use developed under the Proposed Action or alternatives. The following analysis of wastewater generated is based on the number of employees that could occupy the developed site. Typical rates of wastewater flow for various types of development are presented in Table 15. Wastewater flows vary by time of year, local climate, and daily use requirements. The quantities for individual uses can be estimated based on water consumption figures; however, it should be noted that a considerable portion of water distributed to various users is not consumed and does not reach the sanitary sewer system. This "consumed" water includes water used by commercial and manufacturing establishments, and water used for street washing, irrigating landscaping, and extinguishing fires. Conversely, other sources of water may enter sanitary sewer pipes including infiltrating ground water, making the quantity of wastewater greater than the quantity of water supplied to a given user. 112 Table 16 summarizes the estimated wastewater projections for the development scenarios that could occur under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. * Table 16 SUMMARY OF SANITARY SEWER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS Alternative Gallons per Day Proposed Action 166,500 (Development Scenarios "A" and "B ") Alternative 1 140,300 Alternative 2 102,400 Alternative 3 108,000 Assumed to equal water consumption. See Water, above. Source: Metcalf and Eddy, 1979 Because the sanitary sewer conveyance requirements of commercial development represent a significant departure from the conveyance needs of warehouse use, the sewer lines serving the proposed rezone site may not be of sufficient capacity to accomodate the probable needs of the businesses that could develop under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. According to the City of Renton, the gravity systems on the east and south side are less likely to have undercapacity problems than the sewer lines on the north and northwest of the property, which drain into the East Valley Lift Station (Monaghan, 1987). For any alternative, if the system requirements need to be expanded in order to accomodate the wastewater generated by the development, then the property owners would be responsible for the necessary improvements. Proposed Action Because sewer use is assumed to be a function of the number of employees, the wastewater flows are assumed to be the same for both development scenarios under the Proposed Action. Under both development scenarios, the proposed rezone of the site to B -1 would allow commercial uses that are not currently permitted under the existing Manufacturing Park (M -P) zone. A wastewater generation of 166,500 gpd under this alternative is based only on retail employees and customers. It is likely that more intensive customer - generated wastewater uses, such as restaurants, could be developed that could increase the estimated wastewater volumes. 113 Alternative 1: No Action The existing M -P zone under this alternative allows a number of manufacturing, service, and business office uses that could generate wastewater quantities that are considerably greater than the Proposed Action or Alternatives. These users could generate large amounts of industrial wastewater, which could include inorganic compounds not normally generated by non - industrial sources. While these compounds may not comprise a significant portion of the wastewater generated, they could require pre- treatment. For illustrative purposes, it is assumed that the proposed rezone site under this alternative could be developed for office use. These relatively employee- intensive office uses could generate approximately 140,300 gpd of wastewater. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development The existing B -1 zone allows a wide range of commercial uses such as restaurants, car washes, and laundromats, that could generate substantial volumes of wastewater. A change of the proposed rezone site to a B -1 zone without adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan policies could result in the development of uses that generate high volumes of wastewater. The projected amount of wastewater that could be generated by development under this alternative assumes a mixture of uses as described in Section II. This volume of 102,400 gpd assumes none of the commercial uses that generate large amounts of wastewater, such as car washes, and, therefore, could understate the amount of wastewater that could be generated on the site. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Commercial Retail Development The potential impacts under this alternative could be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Since this is a smaller scale version of the Proposed Action, the quantity of wastewater generated from this alternative is expected to be proportionately less (108,000 gpd as compared to 166,300 gpd under the Proposed Action). Mitigation Measures With the exception of water conserving measures applied to landscaping, any mitigation that reduces water consumption also would benefit the sanitary sewer system by reducing the volume of wastewater that would be collected, conveyed, and treated. NATURAL GAS Affected Environment Natural Gas is supplied to the proposed rezone site area by the Washington Natural Gas Company (WNG). The proposed rezone site is served by four -inch diameter pipes in the East Valley Road and in S.W. 41st Street. There are no existing plans by WNG to extend or improve the service to this area. 114 Significant Impacts Natural gas may or may not be used in the development allowed under the Proposed Action or alternatives. None of the possible commercial uses would require natural gas quantities in excess of what is currently available. According to representatives of the Washington Natural Gas Company, the Proposed Action and alternatives would not significantly impact the existing service levels (Olsen, 1987). Proposed Action Retail uses of the Proposed Action under either Development Scenario are not generally significant users of natural gas relative to industrial users that may require natural gas in the manufacturing process. Alternative 1: No Action Development of the proposed rezone site in uses allowed in the existing M -P zone could result in light manufacturing uses locating on -site. These manufacturers could consume significant quantities of natural gas. Develop- ment of the proposed rezone site in office uses is not expected to require large amounts of gas, if any. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development The redesignation of the proposed rezone site to B -1 without implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Policies could encourage retail and office businesses that use natural gas. Without a unified development plan, the natural gas distribution system may need to be oversized in order to accomodate potential needs. Some uses, such as car washes and restaurants, could have specific natural gas requirements that are considerably greater than the uses anticipated under the Proposed Action. Natural gas use under this alternative could be greater than under the Proposed Action. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development The development of the proposed rezone site under this alternative could be at a lesser scale, although similar in types of uses to the Proposed Action. Thus, the alternative could have proportionately less demands on natural gas use. Mitigation Measures If natural gas is required by individual users, individual meters could be installed. Additional energy conservation measures could be incorporated into the final design of the building structure for the efficient use of natural gas for heating, water heating, cooking, or process purposes. 115 ELECTRICITY Affected Environment Electricity is provided to the proposed rezone site by the Puget Sound Power and Light Company. The proposed rezone site is served by underground lines on all sides. The line system, consisting of distribution and feeder lines, is capable of providing three -phase power. According to representatives of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company, shortfalls in the level of service that had characterized the area in the past were a result of rapid growth. This has been corrected so that there is adequate power for future development at the proposed rezone site. System improvements, including the upgrade of the existing substation on Talbot Hill and improvements to the feeder system, allow better load distributions (Malone, 1987). Significant Impacts Proposed Action Development of either scenario is not expected to adversely affect the existing level of electrical service. The existing system and improvements have been designed to provide adequate power to users of electricity in the area. The uses expected with the development of Scenarios "A" and "B" are projected to require approximately 23.3 million KWH per year of electricity. Electrical uses would include interior and exterior lighting, space condi- tioning, appliance and equipment use, and could include water heating. Estimated annual energy consumption is summarized in Table 17. TABLE 17 ESTIMATED ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Alternative Proposed Action (Development Scenarios "A" and "B ") Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Annual Consumption KWH /YR 23.3 x 106 27.2 x 106 17.2 x 106 15.1 x 106 Source: Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 116 Alternative 1: No Action The development of the proposed rezone site under the existing zoning could result in industrial uses that require more electricity than retail or other uses. However, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that an office complex would be developed. The existing system is sufficient to provide power to meet the need of this development, which is projected at 27.2 million KWH /year. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development The proposed rezone to B -1 without implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Policies could allow a wide range of commercial uses. The existing electrical power system is sufficient to serve the estimated 17.2 million KWH that may be consumed annually as a result of development of this alternative. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development The development and uses associated under this alternative could be similar to those under the Proposed Action. The smaller scale of the development under this alternative could require proportionately less electricity (15.1 million KWH /yr). The existing system has adequate capacity to serve the needs of the expected uses under this alternative. Mitigation Measures Electricity- conserving measures could be incorporated into the final design of any development. These could include landscaping and site planning for energy efficiency; energy- conserving lighting systems, space conditioning, and water heating systems, as well as energy- efficient appliances. Additional energy saving measures could be incorporated by the individual occupants of any future structures. 117 G. PUBLIC SERVICES This section assesses the effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on Fire Protection, Police Protection, and Recreation facilities that serve the proposed rezone site area. Due to the nature of the Proposed Action and alternatives, the discussion focuses on impacts associated with probable and possible developments that could be allowed under the Proposed Action and each of the alternatives. A complete description of each of these programmatic actions and the development scenarios is found in Section II. FIRE PROTECTION Affected Environment The Renton Fire Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical aid services, and fire code enforcement and building plan review within the City of Renton. The Renton Fire Department also has mutual aid response agreements with all surrounding jurisdictions, including the Tukwila and Kent Fire Departments. There are two stations that respond to emergencies in the vicinity of the proposed rezone site. Station 11, located at 211 Mill Avenue South, has the following equipment and staff response capabilities: . one engine with three firefighters . one ladder truck with two firefighters . one aid unit with two firefighters The second station is Station 13, located at 17040 108th Avenue Southeast. This station is equipped with one engine with three firefighters. The Fire Department identifies a need to increase the number of firefighters at this station to five (City of Renton, 1987b). Response time from both Station 11 and Station 13 to the proposed rezone site is approximately four minutes (Gordon, 1987). This response time is within the five minute response time level -of- service standard (City of Renton, 1987b). In 1986, Stations 11 and 13 had the following number of emergency calls: Fire Emergency Aid Station 11 529 1,528 Station 13 377 364 The Tukwila Fire Department can dispatch a single engine with three firefighters from their Station 51. Response time from this station to the proposed rezone site is approximately three minutes (Gordon, 1987). The Fire Department's Master Plan identifies fire flow problem areas in the City; however, as noted in Section III E., above, the proposed rezone site is not identified as a fire flow problem area (City of Renton, 1987b). 119 Significant Impacts The proposed rezone site is currently undeveloped. Any future development of the site would increase the number of people and commercial structures on the site. The increased intensity of use, presence of large, more valuable commercial structures, and increased density of the people using the site would be expected to generate an increase in the number of calls, greater fire flow requirements, increased fire fighters and equipment, and increased demand for fire protection and emergency aid services. Development of the proposed rezone site would lead to increased traffic volumes and congestion in the site vicinity. Congestion can have a sig- nificant effect on emergency response times. Therefore, without adequate roadway improvements (see Mitigation of Chapter III C,Transportation), development under the Proposed Action and alternatives could lead to increased response time for emergency vehicles. In addition, construction activities can lead to increased fire potential and firefighting obstruction, This hazardous situation is attributable to the presence of construction debris and materials, to on -site movement of construction equipment, and to construction - related traffic congestion. The number and kind of required emergency response calls could vary with the type of development, and with the number of employees and customers on the site once development is complete. However, the potential overall increase in demand for fire fighting resources could be at least partially offset by three factors: (1) new construction must meet fire and construction codes, (2) new commercial complexes often have extremely efficient fire suppression systems, and (3) new developments are evaluated by the Fire Department, with developer- funded fire system improvements incorporated, as warranted. The types of fire system improvements that may be necessary could include new equipment, infrastructure (line and storage) upgrades, new personnel and /or specialized training, or special features integrated into the actual development. The specific requirements would be established as actual development proposals are submitted. Proposed Action Common types of calls received under the Proposed Action could include emergency medical aid, car fires and dumpster fires. Major commercial structure fires can be expected infrequently. These structural fires are not as common due to uniform building code regulation and regular fire inspection programs. The 20- to 60 -foot height of structures could define the amount of fire flow water pressure (See Utilities chapter). The amount of commercial development and number of employees and patrons could be comparable under both proposed development scenarios, thus requiring the same number of responses to fire protection and emergency aid calls. Development Scenario "A." Development under this Scenario could result in three dispersed clusters of retail commercial structures on the proposed rezone site. This dispersion could contribute to an increased potential for conflicts between emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and vehicles moving through the site. 120 Development Scenario "B." Development under this scenario could result in a single retail commercial structure. Distinct vehicular access points and the single structure design could reduce potential conflicts between emergency vehicles, pedestrians and other vehicles, compared with Development Scenario "A." If a fire were to ignite in a structure of the size proposed under this scenario, it could be more difficult to contain than under Scenario A due to the continuous nature of the structure. Alternative 1: No Action Retention of the existing zone of M -P and existing Comprehensive Plan designation would allow the development of a wide range of light industrial and office space uses. Common emergency requests in these types of developments include emergency medical aid, car fires, dumpster fires, and interior fires. In addition, industrial (manufacturing) uses can pose unique fire protection problems, particularly if hazardous or flammable materials are used in the development. The incidence of injury /accidents and chemical fires in this type of development possibly could require more specialized equipment and fire fighting resources. The development of the rezone site in office use likely could consist of a number of distinct office structures within an office park. Because of the dispersed development, the potential impacts associated with providing fire protection to these buildings could be comparable to those described in the assessment of impacts for Development Scenario "A" of the Proposed Action. Height of office structures under the alternative could vary between 45 and 150 feet, substantially taller than the 20- to 60 -foot height anticipated under the Proposed Action. Greater height could result in increased demand for ladder trucks, increased manpower resources (for frequent crew changes), and higher static pressures for maintaining water flow. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development As described in Section II, commercial development of the site without guiding policy language could enable a mixture of office and commercial uses. In this instance there could be increased possibility of uncoordinated development, a greater number of curb cuts, and uncoordinated parking facilities. In addition, vehicular and pedestrian routes and circulation patterns throughout the site are unlikely to be sufficiently distinct so as to ensure safety or sufficiently coordinated so as to encourage efficiency. Resulting traffic congestion and confusion could result in slower response to emergencies, lack of space for emergency vehicles and less efficient fire response on the site. The type of calls experienced under this alternative could be similar to those under the Proposed Action and Alternative 1, without the possibility of industrially - related calls. 121 Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development The impacts on fire protection associated with the development of this alternative could be similar to those discussed under the Proposed Action; however, the smaller size and scale of the structure could reduce the impacts on fire protection resources because of the presence of fewer and smaller structures, fewer employees and patrons, fewer vehicles on site, and possibly, diminished static flow requirements. Mitigating Measures Site plans would be reviewed by the City Fire Department before final approval in order to solicit comments and recommendations. During this site plan review process a variety of elements could be addressed, including response time to the site and the potential need for roadway (or signal) improvements, access to the site for emergency vehicles, circulation on the site and how landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle movement, controls, signals and roadway design could benefit safe, efficient access and circulation. All commercial structures would incorporate standard fire prevention measures as required by City codes. As described earlier, system improvements necessary to accomodate the projects could be identified by the Fire Department during the permit process, and would become a condition of project approval. Each building on the site could be separately addressed using a campus addressing system for easy identification of the buildings in an emergency. POLICE PROTECTION Affected Environment Police protection within the City of Renton is provided by the Renton Police Department. Additional service is provided by all adjacent jurisdictions on an as- needed basis through mutual aid agreements. The City of Renton is one of four members of the Valley Communications Center, through which all calls for police assistance are routed. Dispatches for Renton Police Department calls are made from the Department's Headquarters at 200 Mill Avenue South, to any of the six designated patrol districts within the City of Renton. The Renton Police Department is staffed by 64 commissioned officers and 24 non - commissioned staff, for a total of 88 personnel (Baker, 1987). The proposed rezone site is within district "R -2" of the City, which includes portions of the downtown area and the Green River Valley. In 1986, there were 27,299 calls for service (Baker, 1987). Of these calls, the following types, with corresponding number of calls in 1986, are determined to be the most common in commercial developments (Owen, 1988): 122 Commercial Crimes Number of Crimes in 1986 Armed robbery 44 Commercial burglary 246 Shoplifting 755 Vandalism 130 Forgery /check fraud /credit card fraud 199 Customer disputes 73 Parking Lot Crimes Purse snatch 11 Thefts from vehicles 1,000 Auto theft 275 An average of five and one -half officers per 24 hour period is used for regular patrols of the R -2 district. Average response time within the R -2 district is approximately three minutes for emergency calls. Depending on the nature of the call and the intensity of traffic, this response time could be extended to as much as 10 minutes (Baker, 1988). Significant Impacts The proposed rezone site is currently undeveloped. Any future development of the site either under the current M -P zoning or the proposed B -1 zoning, therefore, would increase the number of people (employees and customers) and commercial structures on the site. The increased intensity of use, presence of large, more valuable commercial structures, and increased density of people could be expected to generate an increase in the number of calls related to parking lot and commercial crime. The number and nature of calls could vary with the type of development and with the total number of employees and patrons on site once development is completed. Because specific businesses and the site plan have not been identified, it is not possible to reliably forecast the number and nature of calls (Baker, 1988). Incidence of crime is generally higher in retail centers than in office or industrial developments. In addition, the type of business that locates in a retail center is a factor in the occurrence of certain crimes (Owen, 1987). For example, large national retail chains, such as Sears, Penneys, and K Mart, usually have their own security forces and are more likely to have effective loss prevention programs; this results in more detection of shoplifting and, hence, more calls for police assistance in the arrests of offenders (Owen, 1987). It also reduces the number of commercial burglary, fraud and customer disputes. 121 The type of business generally does not affect the rate of parking lot crime, which is more a function of parking lot design (Owen, 1987). Large parking lots associated with mall -type commercial developments encourage a high incidence of auto theft, purse snatching and car break -ins, whereas smaller, divided lots act as deterrents. Similar to Fire Protection response, police response time could be increased by development under any alternative due to increases in traffic volume and congestion. This impact could be reduced, however, through the provision of distinct circulation patterns and multiple access points. Increases in traffic volume, particularly in a commercial setting, generally increases the need for traffic enforcement and accident investigation as well. Proposed Action Development of either Scenario "A" or "B" under the Proposed Action would require greater police protection and patrols. Representatives of the Renton Police Department anticipate a greater number of calls for commercial /retail use of the site, than if the site were developed with industrial or office uses. The extent of potential loss from commercial burglary, armed robbery, vandalism and thefts from vehicles is expected to be high (Owen, 1987). In order to better serve the development, the Renton Police Department estimates that approximately four law- enforcement officials would need to be added to the force (Baker, 1988). A concern has been raised by the Renton Police Department that the distinct internal circulation patterns identified under either Development Scenario, could encourage "cruising" (Owen, 1987). The Renton Police Department has been attempting to minimize this activity in the downtown area, and there is some concern that any new commercial areas could attract this type of recreational driving. The Police Department also has expressed concern that the incidence of parking lot crime could be greater under Development Scenario "B" (Owen, 1987). Alternative 1: No Action Retention of the existing M -P zone could allow the development of a wide range of light industrial and office space uses. The Police Department identifies this alternative as having the least impact on crime rate of all the alternatives (Owen, 1987). Thefts could be office - related (such as wallets, purses) and commercial burglary could be smaller in amount of loss (office equipment loss compared to retail store inventory theft). Parking lot crime could be similar to the Proposed Action, Development Scenario "A" (Owen, 1987). Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development Commercial development under this Alternative likely could result in a mixture of office and commercial uses. Assuming a greater percentage of office development to retail development, the nature and incidence of crime could be similar to Alternative 1. If retail businesses that have a high 124 cash turnover (and /or operate 24 hours a day) are developed (such as the banks, service stations., or fast food restaurants that are a possibility under this alternative), the incidence of armed robbery could be expected to be higher than that in clustered, mall, or office developments (Owen, 1987). In addition, smaller stores are more dependent on police department services for resolution of customer disputes, fraud cases, and shoplifting since they generally do not employ private security services and often do not have sophisticated theft deterrence programs. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development Development under this alternative could be similar to the development scenarios described under the Proposed Action; therefore, the impacts could be similar, although at a proportionately smaller scale. In order to effectively serve the development, approximately three law enforcement officials could need to be added to the police force (Baker, 1988). Mitigating Measures Provisions for on -site security could be required of operators of any large -scale developments, which would minimize the need for emergency calls for assistance from the Renton Police Department. A Local Improvement District could be established in order to facilitate the provision of private security within the district. The final site designs could incorporate measures to enhance visibility of the project site, particularly parking areas, and could incorporate signage that would state the prohibited use of the site for cruising or loitering. This could assist in reducing the number of violations issued to recreational drivers. The site plan review process also could examine overall site plans to ensure that landscaping does not create areas that are susceptible to crime, and that adequate security lighting and distinct pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns reduce the potential for vehicle conflicts and enhance access for police and emergency vehicles. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Affected Environment The Renton park system includes 29 parks, the Senior Citizen's Center, several recreation centers, a swimming pool, trails, and the Maplewood Golf Course (City of Renton, 1987). City of Renton recreational facilities are maintained by the City Parks and Recreation Department under the direction of the Park Board and the Department Director. Long term goals and objectives for the development of the City Parks and Recreational System are summarized in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan that was adopted as an element of the City Comprehensive Plan in April 1984. Many of the specific objectives of the park plan center around maximizing the public access, use, and appreciation of the natural features of the city, such as stream corridors, wildlife habitats, shorelines, and wetlands. The goal in the acquisition of city park lands is to meet the minimum national standard of 10 acres of parks for every 1,000 population. 125 The City currently has approximately 13 acres of (primary and secondary) park per 1,000 population. Primary parks are those that serve a variety of recreation needs, such as Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and Liberty Park, while secondary parks are more specialized, such as the Golf Course, the Cedar River Natural Zone, and the Wetlands (Mom's, 1988). Two hundred fifteen acres of park are in primary parks (Man, 1988), which results in approximately 6 acres of primary park land per 1,000 population. The proposed rezone site is in the Green River Valley neighborhood area, west of the Talbot Hill /Springbrook neighborhood. The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan indicates that the Green River Valley neighborhood has adequate park land area, developed recreation facilities, and recreation programs to meet the area's population. The primary future recreation demands in the area are expected to be from the growing employment base in the Valley. As there are no existing active recreation facilities in the area, it is expected that the supply of recreation facilities may not be sufficient to accomodate future demand. Recreational facilities in the vicinity of the proposed rezone site (within these two neighborhood areas) are identified in Table 18 and Figure 21. The Talbot Hill /Springbrook area is identified in the Plan as needing a greater inventory of park lands. Two natural features of the Green River Valley neighborhood are included as priority aquisition and development items in the Park Plan: the city wetlands ( #28) and the Green River greenbelt. The City Parks Department plans to improve access to these areas; however, funding is not currently available for the capital improvements to these resources (City of Renton, 1987c). The City Department of Parks and Recreation is currently drafting a comprehensive Trails Master Plan for possible inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezone site is located just north of the Kent city limits. Any potential impacts on the City of Renton recreation facilities could be expected to affect Kent, as well. The area to the south of the site that lies in the City of Kent is within the Valley Floor planning area of Kent's Comprehensive Plan. Important recreational facilities in this area include: . The Interurban Trail, which extends from South Auburn to approximately 182nd in Kent and runs along the former Burlington Northern Right -of -Way. This facility, used by joggers and bicyclists, lies approximately one mile west of the proposed rezone site; . Springbrook Park at the southwest corner of 43rd Avenue South and 80th Street (Wickstrom, 1987). Future City of Kent park plans in the area include development of a Green River Bike Trail along the five acres of City -owned greenbelt, which abuts the Green River, and the proposed extension of the Christianson Greenbelt, which runs along the west side of the Green River from I -405 to the Kent City limits. As opportunities arise, the City of Renton will acquire land for greenbelt and trail links to connect the Valley areas to the Green River Trail, Christianson Trail, the Interurban Trail, and Fort Dent Park (Morris, 1988). 126 Table 18 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE GREEN RIVER VALLEY AND TALBOT HILL /SPRINGBROOK NEIGHBORHOODS. NAME PARK # ACRES TYPE FACILITIES Green River Valley Black River 1 8.5 Open Space Open Space Fort Dent (King County) 5 51.5 Regional Park Baseball fields (4), multi- purpose fields (4) Wetlands 28 20 Reserve Open Space Springbrook Creek 8 10.7 Open Space Open Space Talbot Hill /Springbrook Lake Street 14 0.34 Neighborhood Open Space Lower Talbot 16 4.5 Neighborhood Open Space Talbot Hill Reservoir 25 2.5 Neighborhood Tennis courts (3), pickle -ball courts (3), rest - rooms, parking Talbot Hill Park 24 10 Neighborhood Multi - purpose field, basket- ball court, multi - purpose court, pickle - ball court, activity building, play- ground and equipment, picnic tables (7), parking Springbrook Watershed 9 38 Open Space Open Space Talbot Hill School 21 4 School Baseball fields (2), outdoor basketball courts (2) Source: Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, 1984. 127 Talbot Hill ' Park • :.t r. Figure 21 Existing Recreation Facilities in the Green River Valley and Talbot Hill / Springbrook Neighborhoods City of Renton 128 SHAPIIO& ASSQEI8 S Significant Impacts Potential impacts of development scenarios under the Proposed Action or Alternatives could increase the demands on recreational facilities in the vicinity of the site. The minimum accepted standards of the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) for developed recreational facilities is based on population of the city. For instance, the NRPA suggests that a park system be developed with a total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population. The needs and demands on a jurisdiction of developed open space for employment centers is also recognized. The City of Renton has no standards for open space based on an employment factor, however, the NRPA standard for on -site recreational park use is one acre per 500 employees. For the purpose of this assessment, this standard is applied to the development scenarios. The ability of existing or planned facilities to accomodate project - related demand would depend upon the time of project development and the inventory of recreation facilities and available capacity. • Proposed Action The proposed rezone from M -P to B -1 could increase the intensity of allowed uses. The employees of the development could increase the demands on existing recreational facilities, particularly at Fort Dent, Talbot Hill Reservoir, and Talbot Hill parks. For all alternatives, the development of the site could result in a demand for additional recreational facilities. For both development scenarios under the Proposed Action, the demand for recreational land could be up to 4.4 acres, based on the expected number of employees. Alternative 1: No Action Based on the numbers of employees, the increased demand for recreation land under this alternative could be 13.4 acres. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development The combination of office uses and commercial uses proposed under this alternative could employ approximately 3,180 employees, which could result in a demand for up to 6.4 acres of recreational land. Alternative 3: Smaller Scale Retail Commercial Development Based on the number of employees, this alternative could require up to 2.9 acres of recreational land to serve the employees of the proposed rezone site. Mitigating Measures On -site open space facilities could be incorporated into the final site design. These could be for improvements that would serve both the employees and the customers /clients of the built alternative. Alter- natively, the applicant could participate in the development of off -site recreation facilities. 129 H. ECONOMICS The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone do not, in and of themselves, result in economic impacts; however, the development encouraged and allowed by these actions would, and are discussed in this section. The economics discussion focuses on two elements of the economy: employment and fiscal impact. A brief description of how a retail commercial center could affect the viability of downtown businesses is presented in Section IIIA, above. The employment analysis in this chapter considers impacts of the proposed development scenarios on employment in the City of Renton. The assumptions and findings of the employment analysis are presented in Appendix E. Fiscal impacts considered in this analysis include the potential changes in municipal revenues and expenditures that may result from development under the development scenarios. A discussion of the assumptions and methodology used to assess the fiscal impacts is presented in Appendix E of this document. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Employment The total number of jobs in the Renton area was 24,247 in 1970 (City of Renton, 1987a). Of this number, more than 85% were employed in the central Renton area, which includes the central business district, Boeing, and PACCAR. Employment rose by more than 75% (to 42,000) between 1970 and 1980 with three - quarters of the overall growth occurring in the central Renton area. The Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) forecasts that there will be modest overall employment growth between 1980 and 1990 with manufacturing employment decreases being more than offset by employment growth in the services sector (see Figure 22). During the 1984 -1986 period, 885,000 square feet of office space was added in the city. At an average of 4.0 employees per 1,000 square feet, this alone would represent an increase of 3,500 employees. Thus, PSCOG forecasts may understate the actual employment growth that will occur. Employment will grow to over 52,000 jobs in the Renton area by 2000, with more than 60% of these jobs in central Renton (City of Renton, 1987a). Figure 23 illustrates the changes in employment that have occurred since 1970 and forecast employment to 2000 in the Renton Industrial /S.E. Renton area, which encompasses the proposed rezone site and a land area extending north to the downtown. Figure 23 indicates that there were relatively few jobs in the area until the years between 1970 and 1980 when the area began to develop. Manufacturing employment in this subarea is forecast to stay approximately the same with the greatest relative growth projected to occur in the services sector during the 1990's. 131 60000 - 50000 - 40000 NUMBER OF 30000 EMPLOYEES 20000 10000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR ❑ Government, Education la Wholesale, Transportation, Communication, Utilities ® Manufacturing • Service ▪ Retail Source: Puget Sound Council of Governments, 1986 Figure 22 City of Renton Employment NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 16000 . 14000 - 12000 - 10000 - 8000 - 6000 - 4000 - 2000 - 0. rer 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR ❑ Government, Education a Wholesale, Transportation, Communications, Utilities ® Manufacturing Service • Retail Figure 23 S.E. Renton /Renton Industrial Area Employment City of Renton IAATESS 132 Municipal Expenditures and Revenues Municipal costs for the City of Renton are described for each of the 22 City departments in the annual budget. The total 1987 Annual Budget is nearly $39 million, with individual department budgets ranging from $86,000 to more than $11 million. For simplicity of presentation, these 22 divisions have been aggregated into five major service categories: General Government, Public Safety, Public Works, Social and Human Services, and Parks and Recreation. The distribution of budgeted costs for each of the major service categories in 1987 is shown in. Figure 24. What is immediately apparent from the figure is the large portion (almost half) of the City budget allocated to public works. Public works is traditionally a capital intensive service of municipal governments and will continue to be a major budgetary item in Renton. The recent expansion of budget costs in Public Works is largely due to the development and expansion of the City of Renton and the creation of a new storm sewer utility (City of Renton, 1987c). Large capital outlays have had to be made to provide adequate sewer, water, roads, and storm drainage to the developing areas within the City limits. Public Safety, which includes the Police and Fire Departments, represents approximately 22% of the City budget. Parks and Recreation, which includes the Parks Department as well as the golf course, represents 14% of the budget. General Government represents 12% and Human Services less than 2 %. FIGURE 24 1987 CITY EXPENDITURES BY SERVICE CATEGORY Source: City of Renton, 1987c. 133 22% II GENERAL GOVERNMENT m PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS ® HUMAN SERVICES ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION According to the 1987 budget, the largest portion (35 %) of City revenues, is derived from City taxes. These sources include the City property taxes, which are collected by the King County Assessor's Office, and the sales tax revenues (about 6 %) collected by the State. The total budgeted City tax revenues for 1987 are expected to be approximately 7% higher than the 1986 revenues from taxes. As more property is developed and as the assessed value of these developments increases, these tax revenues are expected to grow. The second largest source of City revenues, according to the 1987 budget, is from service charges that are assessed by the City for the use of municipal services. These services include the provision of City water, the collection and conveyance of wastewater, and the collection, handling, and disposal of solid waste. These revenues also are expected to rise with growth and development of the City as well as increases in cost of developing utility facilities. Due to a utility rate adjustment being implemented in 1987, the projected revenues from service charges are expected to increase by 23% over 1986 service charge revenues. In order to facilitate fiscal impact analysis of the alternatives, total costs and revenues for the City of Renton have been projected to the year 1995, which is the year when development of the proposed rezone site could be expected to be completed. The 1995 costs and revenues have been calculated by applying an assumed inflation rate of 4 %. Based on this assumption, it is expected that the 1995 budget will be approximately $53 million, an increase of 37% over the 1987 budget. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 could expand the existing area available for the development of commercial uses in the City of Renton. Proposed Action Employment Based on a survey of regional commercial centers in King County and Snohomish County, and discussions with the Research Departments of the International Council of Shopping Centers and the Urban Land Institute, employment multipliers for regional shopping centers were derived. (The interested reader is referred to Appendix E for a discussion of findings and conclusions regarding employment.) The employment analysis results in an estimated average employment of 2220 workers at the center once fully operational. Actual employment could fluctuate over the year with peaks occuring during the periods of greatest sales, typically late in the calendar year. The types of job opportunities that are expected to be created by this alternative include salespersons, warehouse workers and managers. Seasonal sales employment and maintenance jobs also could be supported by the development of the Proposed Action. 134 Secondary employment opportunities could result from development of the Proposed Action. These "spinoff" employment opportunities are those that would provide goods and services considered complementary to the regional retail sales associated with the Proposed Action. Spinoff employment could include employment both in and out of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment area and also could extend outside the City of Renton. The spinoff development could include businesses that support businesses located in the study area, as well as the households of individuals employed at the retail center. Fiscal Impact Calculations of the municipal revenues and expenditures that could be expected in 1995 with commercial development of the rezone site are presented in Appendix E. According to that analysis, retail commercial development of the proposed rezone site could increase municipal costs by approximately $337,000 for the first year of operation (assumed to be 1995). The regional commercial center development of the rezone site represents the greatest increase in municipal costs of the four development scenarios considered in the fiscal study. In general, the public safety costs represent the largest share of the increased municipal costs associated with development of the Proposed Action (see Table 19). It is estimated that nearly 75% of the total municipal costs associated with commercial development could be used for increased police protection. Operation of a 1 million square foot regional commercial center on the rezone site is projected to produce revenues to the City of Renton of approximately 3.954 million dollars per year (in 1995 dollars). The primary source of revenue could be 2.37 million dollars of sales tax revenues. An additional $1,345,000 in property tax revenues could be generated annually by Development Scenario "A" or "B." Other revenues, such as real estate excise taxes, may accrue to the City in a given year. Due to the large increase in sales and use tax revenues that are anticipated with the development of commercial uses, the net revenues that could accrue to the City of Renton under the Proposed Action are estimated to be approximately 3.6 million dollars (in 1995 dollars), which compares with a projected 1995 city budget of $53 million, Alternative 1: No Action Employment The types of job opportunities that could be available under this alternative generally could be office - related, although light industrial uses and, therefore, affiliated labor are permitted under the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. While it is difficult to predict the types of jobs that could be created by this Alternative, the proximity of the proposed rezone site to large industrial areas may provide an incentive for industrial management offices to locate on the rezone site. 135 Item Table 19 Revenues and Expenditures Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 REVENUES Property Tax 1,345,000 1,019,300 790,900 874,400 Sales Tax - Operations 2,370,000 0 710,000 1,540,000 Business License 121,000 368,500 176,000 77,000 Utility Tax 118,500 151,800 93,100 77,100 TOTAL - Revenues 3,954,500 1,539,500 • 1,770,000 2,568,500 , EXPENDITURES 0) Police 249,100 62,300 94,400 249,100 Fire 17,800 17,800 17,800 17,800 Public Works 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 General Government: 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 TOTAL - Expenditures 336,900 150,100 182,200 336,900 REVENUES - EXPENDITURES Source: See Text 3,617,600 1,389,400 1,587,800 2,231,600 Based on an average number of employees per square foot (see Appendix E), the development of this alternative could generate 6,680 new jobs. As in the case of the Proposed Action, the development of this alternative also could result in the creation of secondary employment that is not incorpo- rated into the calculation of 6,680 jobs. This secondary employment could represent jobs generated in businesses that support businesses located on the rezone site as well as businesses that support the families of workers. Fiscal Impact Based on the assumptions contained in the fiscal analysis, the develop- ment of the rezone site as a 1.5 million square foot office complex are projected to require an additional $150,000 in budgeted municipal costs in 1995. The increased costs could be incurred by all service categories of the Renton City government, however, it is expected that the majority of the expense could be borne by the police protection and public works service categories (see Table 19). Municipal revenues that could be anticipated by development under this alternative are estimated at $1.540 million (in 1995 dollars) for the first full year of operation. Of the total revenue projected, more than two - thirds ($1.020 million) could be expected to be generated from increased property tax revenues. The remainder could be generated from business license fees and utility taxes paid by the businesses. The net municipal revenues that could be expected to be generated in 1995 by the development under this alternative could total approximately $1,389,000, which is the least beneficial of the four alternatives. Figure 25 illustrates the municipal revenues and expenditures of the four alternatives. Alternative 2: Rezone to B -1, No Planned Development Employment Employment opportunities for development under this alternative could be expected to include both the office and commercial related employment described for the Proposed Action and the Alternative 1. The development of 300,000 square feet of retail commercial space can be expected to generate approximately 660 jobs, while the development of 570,000 square feet of office space on the proposed rezone site could be expected to provide 2,520 jobs. Thus, there could be an estimated total of 3180 jobs directly generated by the Alternative. As in the case of the other alternatives, there could be additional employment generated through spinoff development that could support busi- nesses operating on the study site or in support of household expenditures made by the families of employees. Fiscal Impact Based on the findings of the fiscal analysis found in Appendix E, it is estimated that the total cost to the City of Renton for providing municipal services to the development under this alternative could be approximately 137 4000 3500 3000. A M 2500 UO 2000 N 1500 T 1000 500 (in thousands of 0 dollars) Proposed Alternative Alternative Alternative Action 1 2 3 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO REVENUES ■ • 350 — 300 — A 250 — • 200 — O • 150 — N 100 — 50 — (in thousands of 0 dollars) it m EXPENDITURES Proposed Alternative 1 Alternative 2Alternative 3 Action DEVLOPMENT SCENARIO O Utility Tax El Business License ® Sales Tax - Operations Property Tax O General Government El Public Works ® Fire • Police Figure 25 Municipal Revenues and Expenditures of the Development Scenarios City of Renton 138 $182,000 in 1995 (see Table 19). While it is difficult to predict how such costs could be distributed, the most significant impacts on City services could be for police protection and in the public works categories. The revenues that could accrue to the City of Renton under development of this alternative could total approximately $1,770,000 (in 1995 dollars). Property tax (45 %) and sales tax (40 %) could represent the greatest contribution to the calculated revenues. The net value of the development of this alternative to the City of Renton in 1995 could be approximately $1,588,000, compared with a projected budget of $53 million. Alternative 3: Smaller -Scale Retail Commercial Development Employment. The types of employment opportunities that could be offered by a development of this alternative could be comparable to those described for the Proposed Action. The development of 650,000 square feet of retail commercial space could create approximately 1,440 new jobs in retail and related professions. Additional secondary employment, similar to those occupations described for the Proposed Action, also could be created. Fiscal Impact. The 1995 costs to the City of providing municipal services to a 650,000 square foot retail commercial building under this alternative, could be approximately $336,000 for the first year of full operation. This expenditure is identical to that of the Proposed Action. Revenues for development of this alternative are estimated at approximately $2,569,000 in 1995. The greatest source of revenue could be sales taxes, estimated at $1,540,000 in 1995. The second greatest source of municipal revenue could be property taxes, estimated at $874,000. In terms of net impact to the City, this alternative could generate $2,232,000 excess revenues compared to expenditures. This would make the development of this alternative worth a net amount of $649,500 to the City of Renton in 1995, which could be the first year of full operation. Figure 26 illustrates the relative net fiscal impact to the City of Renton of the four alternatives. From this figure it is apparent that the Proposed Action represents the most beneficial impact, followed by developments under Alternative 3, Alternative 2, and Alternative 1. MITIGATING MEASURES None are proposed. 139 F S C A L M P A C T S 5 4 3 2 1 0 (in millions of 1995 dollars) Source: SeeText Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Figure 26. Net Fiscal Impacts of the Development Scenarios City of Renton AS 140 +■ APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Environmental Protection Agency Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Energy State Governor's Office Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Wildlife Department of Transportation Department of Social and Health Services Ecological Commission Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington Regional Metro - Water Quality Division Metro - Transit Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Puget Sound Council of Governments Seattle - King County Department of Public Health Local Government King County Department of Public Works, Hydraulics Division King County Building and Land Development Division King County Planning and Community Development Department King County Soil and Water Conservation District City of Renton Mayor City Council Hearing Examiner's Office Planning Commission Public Works Department Parks and Recreation Department Police Department Fire Department City Attorney SEPA Information Center APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) Utilities /Services Renton School District #403 Puget Sound Power and Light Company Washington Natural Gas Company Pacific Northwest Bell Libraries Renton Public Library - Main Branch (3) Renton Public Library - Highlands Branch (2) University of Washington Library, College of Arch. & Urban Planning King County. Public Library System Newspapers Seattle Times Seattle o Intel1igencer Daily Journal of Commerce Renton Record ZFron i ci e Private Organizations and Others Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce City of Kent Indian Tribal Council APPENDIX B ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Following is a list of Elements of the Environment as set forth in the Washington Administrative Code. Items marked "Discussed" are discussed in this document, on pages specified in the Table of Contents. Items marked "Not Discussed" have impacts deemed to be non - significant, for reasons briefly stated thereafter. 1. Natural Environment a. Earth i. Geology Not discussed; although filled, no unusual conditions exist on this site. ii. Soils Not discussed; no unusual conditions exist on this site. iii. Topography Not discussed; no unusual conditions exist on this site. iv. Unique Physical Features Not discussed; no unique physical features exist on this site. v. Erosion /Enlargement of Not discussed; erosion would Land Area (Accretion) not,be significant. b. Air i. Air Quality ii. Odor iii. Climate Not discussed; emissions from development would not be significant. Not discussed; emissions from development not expected to generate significant odor. Not discussed; development would not result in significant impact. c. Water i. Surface Water Movement/ Quantity /Quality ii.. Runoff /Absorption iii. Floods iv. Groundwater Movement/ Quantity /Quality v. Public Water Supplies d. Plants and Animals i. Habitat for and Numbers or Diversity of Species of Plants, Fish or other Wildlife ii. Unique Species iii. Fish or Wildlife Migration Routes e. Energy and Natural Resources i. Amount Required /Rate of Use /Efficiency ii. Source /Availability iii. Nonrenewable Resources iv. Conservation and Renewable Resources v. Scenic Resources Discussed. Discussed. Discussed. Not discussed; not applicable to this site. Not discussed; water consumption of proposal expected to have no significant impact on overall supply. Not discussed; currently only usual urban birds or small mammals can reasonably be expected on site. Not discussed; none exist on site. Discussed; discussed in context of water quality. Discussed; discussed under natural gas and electricity. Not discussed; energy requirements would have insignificant effect on overall supplies. Not discussed; the only consumption of nonrenewable resources could be for building materials and energy requirements. Discussed; discussed under natural gas and electricity. Discussed; discussed under aesthetics. 2. Built Environment a. Environmental Health i. Noise ii. Risk of Explosion iii. Releases or Potential Releases to the Environment Affecting Public Health, such as Toxic or Hazardous Materials b. Land and Shoreline Use i. Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans and to Estimated Population ii. Housing iii. Light and Glare iv. Aesthetics v. Recreation vi. Historic and Cultural Preservation vii. Agricultural. Crops c. Transportation i. Transportation Systems ii. Vehicular traffic iii. Waterborne, Rail and Air Traffic iv. Parking Discussed; noise effects not expected to be significant. Not discussed; risk of explosion not expected to be significant. Not discussed; proposal involves no significant hazard in this area. Discussed. Not discussed; proposal has no significant impact on housing. Not discussed; potential increase in light and glare determined to be non - significant. Discussed. Discussed. Not discussed; no affected historic or cultural resources have been identified. Not discussed; no agricultural uses exist in immediate project vicinity. Discussed. Discussed. Discussed. Not discussed; parking requirements would be subject to review of development proposal. v. Movement /Circulation of People or Goods vi. Traffic Hazards d. Public Services and Utilities i. Fire ii. Police iii. Schools Not discussed; proposal would not have significant impact on movement /circulation of people or goods. Not discussed; potential hazards would be examined as part of review of specific development proposal. Discussed. Discussed. Not discussed; no increase in school population is anticipated to result from development of this project. iv. Parks or Other Recreational Discussed. Facilities v. Maintenance vi. Communications Not discussed; owner would contribute taxes to pay for maintenance of public systems. Not discussed; proposed action not expected to disrupt or create significant demand for communica- tions. vii. Water /Storm Water Discussed; discussed under water. viii. Sewer /Solid Waste Not discussed /discussed; project Would not require significant requirements for disposal of solid waste. ix. Other Governmental Services Not formally discussed; demand or Utilities for government services would be small, discussed in context of cost of municipal services. APPENDIX C REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamson, John. Renton Public Works. Personal communications, 1987 and 1988. Baker, Lieutenant, 1987, 1988. Renton Police Department. Personal communications, August 1987, 1988. Benoit, Michael, 1987. Engineer, Renton Public Works. Letter of correspondence, October 8, 1987. Berg, Randy, 1987. Renton Parks Department. Personal communication, October 16, 1987. Bergstrom, Bob, 1987. Engineer, Renton Public Works. Personal communication, July 1987. Bottemiller, Pat, 1987. Labor Market Analyst, Washington State Employment Security Department. Personal communication, July 1987. Burchell, Robert W., David Lisotkin, William R. Dolphin, 1986. The Fiscal Impact Handbook. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1986. The CH2M Hill and City of Renton, 1986. Valley Transportation Improvements Program, July 1986. City of Renton Building Division. Building Permit Summaries for 1980 -1987. City of Renton 1986 Comprehensive Plan. Compendium, 1986. City of Renton Zoning Ordinance. Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code. City of Renton, 1987a. City of Renton Community Abstract, July 1987. City of Renton, 1987b. Fire Department Master Plan, March 1897. City of Renton, 1987c. Annual Budget. City of Renton, 1986. Cedar River Corridor Strategy, 1986. Clarke, Kevin B., 1988. Personal communications, 1988. Clements, Dan, 1987. Director, Renton Finance Department. Personal communication, July 1987. Conger and Clarke, Inc., 1988. Retail Market Dynamics of the Green River Valley within the City Limits of Renton. A report to the Sabey Corporation, January 22, 1988. Corbin, Doug, 1987. Puget Sound Power and Light. Personal communication, September 1987. Dennherder, Rod, 1987. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Personal communication. EPA, 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume 1, Final Report. Water Planning Division, Washington D.C. Farris, Glen D., J. M. Buffo, K. L. Clark, D. S. Sturgill, R. I. Matsuda, 1979. Urban Drainage Stormwater Monitoring Program, Supplement to Part II, Appendix C. Metro, Seattle, Washington. Galvin, David and Moore, R. K., 1982. Toxicants in Urban Runoff, Metro Toxicant Program Report #2. H.S. EPA and Metro Water Quality Division. Gamponia, Villamor, 1988. Research Planning Analyst, Seattle Water Department, Personal communication, January 1988. Gordo, Glenn, 1987. Fire Marshal, Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. Letter of correspondence, August 28, 1987. Hawthorn, John, 1987. Engineer, Metro. Personal communication. October 1987. Keller, Dale, 1982. Washington State Department of Transportation. Personal communication, September 1987. King County, 1977. Requirements and Guidelines for Storm Drainage Control in King County. King County Department of Public Works. Lancaster, Roger A. (ed.), 1983. Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards National Recreation and Park Association, Alexandria, Virginia. Laswell- Morris, Nancy, 1987, 1988. Renton Policy Development Department. Personal Communications, 1987 and 1988. Metro, 1987. Quality of Local Lakes and Streams. Prepared by the Water Resource Section of Metro, August 1987. Metcalf and Eddy, 1979. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. Monaghan, Donald, 1987. Engineer, Renton Public Works Department. Letter of correspondence, September 1, 1987. Morris, John, 1988 Coordinator, Renton Housing and Community Development, Renton Parks Department. Memorandum to John Adamson, March 31, 1988. Novotny, Vladimir, G. Chester, 1981. Handbook on Nonpoint Pollution, Sources and Management. Van Nostrand Reinhold Environmental Engineering Series. Owen, Brooke, 1987. Memorandum to Nancy Laswell- Morris and John Adamson, December 17, 1987. PSWQA, 1986. Nonpoint Source Pollution, Issue Paper. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. Price, Chuck, 1987a. Engineer, Renton Public Works Department. Letter of correspondence, September 1987. Price, Chuck, 1987b. Renton Public Works Department, Personal communication, 1987. Puget Sound Council of Governments, 1986. Population and Housing Estimates, April 1, 1986. Rahm, Mike, 1987. Economist, Conway and Associates. Revenue Impacts of Potential Development in the Valley Transportation Area. Draft Final Report, June 1987. Shapiro and Associates, 1981. Inventory of Wetlands in the Green - Duwamish River Valley. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Snyder, Dale E, P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle, no date. Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service. USDA. Urban Land Institute, 1977. Shopping Center Development Handbook. Washington Department of Fisheries, 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Washington State Employment Security Department, 1987. Employment and Payrolls in Washington State by County and Industry, May 1987. Webley, John, 1987. Renton Parks Department. Personal communication, September 1987. Wheeler, A. Lee, 1987. Fire Chief, Renton Fire Department. Personal communication, December 1987. Wickstrom, Helen, 1987. Planner, Kent Parks Department. Personnal communication, September 9, 1987. Williams, Gene N. and D.C. Canning, 1981. City of Renton Wetlands Study. Prepared by City of Renton Planning Department and Northwest Environmental, Inc., 1981. Water Pollution Control Federation, 1969. Design and Construction of Sanitary and. Storm Sewers. APPENDI X D TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS [� Bn U |�YU�UU u�u u �� '-- UmOR 20 1988 U _ ] C[{� r'/��kx�'LA 0 PLANN(NGDEPT. William E. Popp Associates Transportation Consultants (206) 454 -6692 Traffic Impact Analysis For Orillia Center Comprehensive Plan /Rezone In City of Renton March 4, 1988 Client: Shapiro & Associates Owner: Sabey Corporation Bellefield Budding • Suite 301 • 1309 - 114th Ave. S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98004 TRANSPORTATION Table of Contents I. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1 A. Valley Street System 1 B. Existing Deficiencies 4 C. Projected Needed Improvements per VTIP 4 D. Bicycle, Pedestrian, Transit, Railroad Systems — Existing Conditions 5 E. VTIP Site Traffic 7 II. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 9 A. Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment 9 B. Differential Impacts 14 C. LOS Impacts by Link 20 D. Alternative Traffic Impact Methodology 31 E. Bicycle, Pedestrian, Transit, and Railroad Systems 34 III. MITIGATING MEASURES 35 A. Proportionate Share 35 B. Needed Off —Site Improvements 35 C. Potential TSM, HOV Strategies 37 D. Alternative Mitigation 41 IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 41 i Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 List of Tables Page No. VTIP Needed Improvements 4 Orillia Center Trip Generation 11 Differential Impact: Proposal 15 Differential Impact: Alternative 1 16 Differential Impact: Alternative 2 17 Differential Impact: Alternative 3 18 Differential Impact: Summary 19 LOS Impact by Link: Proposal 21 LOS Impact by Link: Alternative 1 24 LOS Impact by Link: Alternative 2 26 LOS Impact by Link: Alternative 3' 29 Volume and Level —of— Service Summary 30 Shopping Trip Percentages by Center 32 Size Table 14 Differential Impact: Proposal 36 Table 15 Reduction of Single Occupant Vehicles 39 With a 30% Target ii List of Figures Page No. Figure 1 Existing Street System 2 Figure 2 Daily Traffic Volumes: VTIP Site Use 8 Orillia Center: 9,800 Daily Trips Figure 3 Daily Traffic Volumes: Proposed Action 13 (1.0 Million Square Feet Retail Space) This report examines transportation impacts of the proposed rezone action on arterials in the area covered by the City of Renton's Valley Transportation Improvements Program (VTIP) study dated July 1, 1986 by CH2M Hill. In accordance with the contract scope of work (Attachment A), this study analyzes the valley arterials in an area described by I -405 on the north, SR 167 on the east, SW 43rd Street on the south and West Valley Highway on the west. The study excludes analysis of the boundary facilities of I -405, SR 167, and West Valley Highway. Since the current policy for transportation analysis in the valley is the VTIP study, the analysis approach assumes VTIP year 2000 traffic volumes and needs estimates as the basis for comparison of the proposed action and alternative impacts. I. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. VALLEY STREET SYSTEM The proposed rezone site is surrounded by an urban arterial and freeway system that provides access to regional distribution networks (see Figure 1). Arterials specified for analysis in this study are described below: Lind Avenue is four lanes wide with turn lanes at major intersections and is designated as a minor arterial. Lind Avenue extends north to Grady Way and south to Southwest 43rd Street and borders the site on the west. East Valley Road is designated as a collector arterial in Renton and parallels SR 167 from Southwest 16th Street through Kent, Auburn, Algona, Pacific, and Sumner. East Valley Road connects to the SR 167 southbound off— and southbound on —ramps at the intersection with Southwest 41st Street and borders the site on the east. 3 m ID 0 ID D t0 N 0 N -1 1 OAKESDALE AVE-- z W -1 LIND AVE 1 .LS E. VALLEY RD 1111111111111111111111111011111111101111111111111111111111 u_ u11g 1111111111uuu R !67 Southwest 41st Street is 4 and 5 lanes wide and is designated a collector arterial. This street is a 5 lane arterial from East Valley Road to Lind Avenue and a 4 lane arterial from Lind Avenue to Oakesdale Avenue. Southwest 41st Street extends form Oakesdale Avenue to East Valley Road where it accesses SR 167. Southwest 41st Street borders the site on the south. Southwest 27th Street varies from 3 to 4 lanes wide with 5 lanes at its intersection with Lind Avenue and is not functionally classified. Southwest 27th Street is a 3 lane arterial between East Valley Road and Lind Avenue and a 4 lane arterial between Lind Avenue and the Longacres Race Track. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest is a 4 lane principal arterial and extends from just north of Southwest 31st Street to Southwest 43rd Street. Southwest 43rd Street is 5 lanes and is designated a major arterial. Southwest 43rd Street is a critical link in an east —west corridor extending from South 176th Street on the west to Petrovitsky Road on the east. Southwest 43rd Street provides access to SR 167 northbound on— and off — ramps. B. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES As mentioned in the introduction, the current policy for transportation analysis in the Valley is the VTIP study. The VTIP study approach to level -of- service (LOS) analysis used link volume /capacity ratios as an alternative to the typical detailed intersection LOS analysis technique (see Section II.C. for details). Accordingly, this Orillia study does not analyze nor present intersection LOS results. Based on application of the VTIP link volume /capacity technique the available traffic count data in the study area suggests arterial operation at LOS D or better, with the exception of South 43rd Street in the vicinity of the SR 167 ramp terminal, which is estimated to operate at LOS E. It should be noted that the VTIP study established LOS E as the basis for determining roadway needs. The City of Renton currently considers LOS E and above acceptable. However, a new policy is being formalized for City Council adoption which would set the minimum acceptable LOS at D. C. PROJECTED NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS PER VTIP The VTIP study report recommends roadway network improvements for the Valley area in anticipation of future roadway needs based on a buildout scenario for the study area. It is estimated that by the year 2000, the area developments will generate a total of 150,000 daily trips and that road improvements, including road widening, new road construction, and new signalizations, will be needed to sustain the area, at full development. VTIP- recommended improvements are listed below. Link Table 1 VTIP NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS Lanes Improvement Type Oakesdale Avenue SW SW 43rd - Monster Road 5 New construction SW 43rd - E. Valley Road 5b New construction Lind Avenue SW SW 43rd - SW 16th Street SW 43rd - E. Valley Road 5a 5b New construction D -4 Reconstruction of existing roadway where necessary Link SW 16th Street Monster Road - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind SW 19th Street Oakesdale - Lind SW 27th Street West Valley - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road SR -167 SW 34th Street Longview - Oakesdale SW 41st Street Longview - Lind SW 43rd Street SR -167 Raymond Avenue SW SW 19th - SW 34th Street Longview Avenue S SW 27th - SW 41st Lanes 3b 3 3 5 5a 5 INTX 3a 3a Ramp 3a 3a aRequired by city development ordinance(s). bOutside study area. Improvement Type Reconstruction of existing roadway Reconstruction of existing roadway New construction New construction plus railroad overcrossing Reconstruction New construction New southbound on -ramp/ northbound off -ramps New construction New construction New construction New New D. BICYCLE /PEDESTRIAN, RAILROAD AND TRANSIT Bicycle use in the area of the proposed Orillia Center development is primarily recreational at this time. It should be noted, however, that no bicycle /pedestrian trails of significance have been established in the area of the proposed rezone. A minor trail link has been established, however, by Sabey :Corporation, through their building site, which diagonally links SW 34th Street with Oakesdale Avenue. Plans for development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, specifically the Valley Comprehensive Plan, City of Renton Draft City -wide Comprehensive Master Trails Plan, and King County's General Bicycle Plan - Focus 1990, include a series of trails throughout the developing Valley floor. The Valley Comprehensive Plan indicates Southwest 34th Street, bordering the subject site on the north, and West Valley Road, to the west of the site, as links to an expanded trail system. Ultimately, as indicated in King County's Plan, the system will connect to the Interurban Avenue trail to the west and Lake Washington Boulevard trail to the north. Pedestrian sidewalks are in use along S.W. 43rd Street, East Valley Road, and S.W. 39th Street and sidewalks are in place where the land has been developed along S.W. 41st Street and Lind Avenue. Railroad facilities on the proposed development include two Burlington Northern Railroad spurs at the northern and southern ends of the site. The northern spur is used daily at this time by several distribution warehouses north of the site. The southern spur begins west of the site and ends near the eastern edge of the site. Removal of the southern spur would not effect other area businesses, while the warehouses north of the site would be effected by the removal of the northern spur or by development on the proposed site. Public transportation is provided to the area by Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). Two routes provide weekday peak -hour service to the site along Lind Avenue. Route No. 247 provides three a.m. and p.m. peak -hour trips between Redmond to the north and Kent Boeing and the Green River Corporate Park area to the south. Route No. 247 is currently experiencing a 63 percent ridership, carrying approximately 170 passengers at the peak load point of the South Renton Park and Ride lot. Route No. 163 provides four a.m. and p.m. peak -hour trips between Kent East Hill Park and Ride lot at SE 248th Street /110th Avenue SE and downtown Seattle. This route is a new route and carries approximately 180 passengers at the peak load point at the Tukwila Park and Ride lot or approximately 50 percent ridership. Both routes, combined with transfer opportunities at Park and Ride lots, provide efficient regional access for transit riders. I. E. VTIP SITE TRAFFIC The site uses assumed in the VTIP were a mixture of office, warehouse - industrial, and commercial. The VTIP study trip generation estimate for the site totals 9800 AWT. Trip assignment of this volume on the VTIP road system is shown in Figure 2. D -7 pAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES: YTIP LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Orillia Center: 9,800 Daily Trips WM E POPP ASSOCIATES D -8 Figure 2 II. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS A. Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment Trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment analysis was performed for the proposed action and the three site land use alternatives . In addition, trip generation for the assumed land uses on the VTIP site use was also distributed and assigned to the study area network. For reader information, trip generation refers to the trip count attributed to a particular land use. Trip distribution refers to the process of connecting the generated trips to appropriate destinations. Trip assignment refers to the process of routing the distributed trips over the street network to their respective destinations. The basic trip generation phase was accomplished using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) nationally accumulated trip rates for the site uses with application to gross building square footages. In addition, Puget Sound Council of Governments' (PSCOG) trip rate data for retail uses based on employment estimates was utilized to stratify trips for the several trip purpose categories necessary for the trip distribution model. It is generally recognized that retail uses attract significant numbers of trips which are of a drop —in— nature, i.e., motorists making a stop on their way by a site ( some refer to this as interception ) for another trip purpose such as the basic trip from work —to —home. Another trip of significance to this discussion is the trip that makes a route diversion as part of another basic trip purpose and stops in to shop. These trips show up in the driveway traffic counts which make up the ITE rates and thus the ITE rates are considered to overstate net off —site traffic impacts for retail uses since the trips would have been in the area or on the site adjacent streets anyway,. Another form of trip reduction is the trip that is diverted from other shopping centers, which generally results in some net reduction in traffic in corridors approaching those centers. Later phase analyses of site specific proposals should utilize the ITE rate for analysis of driveway impacts but should explore larger traffic generation reductions than used herein for analysis of off —site impacts. Trip generation estimates for the proposed action and the three alternatives are displayed in Table 2 along with the VTIP trip generation assumed for the subject site. The proposed action includes a 1.0 million square foot retail center and would require 1) amending Renton's Comprehensive Plan to allow commercial development and 2) rezoning the project site from Manufacturing Park (M —P) to Business District (B -1). Site layout for the proposed retail center may be a scheme of several retail clusters or a central mall. Alternative 1 includes 1.5 million square feet of office space and would comply with existing Manufacturing Park (M —P) zoning. The height of the building for this alternative could range from two to ten stories. Alternative 2 is a composite of 300,000 square feet of retail establishments and 570,000 square feet of offices which would be independently developed and managed. Alternative 2 would require revision of the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning to B -1 as outlined for the proposed action, and would be expected to have a greater impact than the proposed action. Alternative 3 includes a smaller scale retail center with 650,000 square feet. Similar to the proposed action, Alternative 3 would include a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone to accommodate the specified land use. This alternative is designed to have "lesser impacts" than the proposed action and would contain three retail clusters. Proposed Action 1.0 Million Square Feet Retail Space Alternative 1 1.5 Million Square Feet Office Space Alternative 2 300,000 Square Feet Retail Space plus 570,000 Square Feet Office Space Alternative 3 650,000 Square Feet Retail Space Table 2 Orillia Center Trip Generation AWT Rate AWT* ITE ITE 37.1 per 1000 SF 10.9 per 1000 SF 50.6 per 1000 SF 14.3 per 1000 SF 37.2 per 1000 SF 37,100 16,350 15,180 8,151 24,180 VTIP Site Uses Office, Warehouse, varies 9,800 Commercial 45 acres * Average Weekday Traffic Trip distribution of the site retail trips was accomplished with a special computerized model application utilizing the "Market Analysis of Orillia Retail Center" for competing stores and for market area definition. Office site trips for alternatives 1 and 2 were distributed to locations on the perimeter of the VTIP area based upon the results of some recent modeling work by the Transpo Group for the VTIP study area. The VTIP assumed Orillia site use trip distribution was based on the external study area percentages cited in the VTIP study. This latter approach was necessary in order to replicate as closely as possible the VTIP Orillia site use distribution and assignment for purposes of subtracting this traffic component from the total VTIP study street volumes. Trip assignment (street routing of distributed trips) for the proposal, the three alternatives and the VTIP Orillia site use were accomplished by computerized network modeling techniques using "T— MODEL" software programs. The particular model utilized is a refinement of the City's area wide "T— MODEL" traffic model. This model routes trips over the calculated minimum time paths from origins to destinations. Average weekday trip assignment for the proposed action is presented in Figure 3. As seen in Figure 3, the Valley Freeway and the East Valley Rd —SW 43rd St —Carr Road routing from the site receives the largest proportions of project traffic. 1279 1211 117 O▪ N 01 01 0 g30 WW WW ■► 0 0 0 O O co co 1437 ugea 01 co m OI 0 01 w is N 380 379 1835 CO 0 N O 0 O on tO 2181 P. 01 w 01 n ti O P A w N 0 0 10 03 0 1421 1819 O O 0 145 O 2188 268 147 268 2188 gi ojo ? W io us ;00 I ` IN ro li a. co W W N 0 122 W W N I V VI 10 1886 Q7 0 0 1804 0 It -� � 8 36 (1.0 Million Square Feet Retail Space) WM E POPP ASSOCIATES D -13 0 li 8197 8132 LEGEND xxx AWT Figure 3 II. B. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS The percent differential impact (% D.I.) on link segments analyzed within the study are are shown in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. There are six major links under observation as required by the scope of services. These include: E. Valley Road, Lind Avenue, Oakesdale Avenue, S.W. 27th Street, S.W. 41st Street and S.W. 43rd Street. Each of these links is broken down into link segments within the study area (6 links, 22 link segments). The procedure for calculating impact differentials is derived from the following calculation (project volume VTIP minus site use volume) divided by background volume. Background volume is defined as VTIP year 2000 volume less volume from VTIP assumed use of Orillia center site. Each alternative is discussed below. 1. Proposal The proposal is a 1.0 MSF retail center (Table 3). East Valley Road is the most heavily impacted link. The average % D.I. is +50.1 %. S.W. 41st Street and S.W. 43rd Street show an average % D.I. of +5.1% and +9.4% respectively. Lind Avenue shows an average % D.I. of 7.3 %, Oakesdale Avenue and S.W. 27th Street show an average % D.I. of +5% or less. The average % D.I. for the entire area is a +11.2 %. 2. Alternative 1 The first alternative, a 1.5 million square foot office center, is analyzed in Table 4. Lind Avenue is the most heavily impacted link for this alternative, the average % D.I. is 9.5 %. The average % D.I. for S.W. 43rd Street is -0.3 %. The overall impact on the study area for alternative 1 is +4.0 %. 3. Alternative 2 The second alternative is a combination of 0.3 MSF retail and 0 -57 MSF office, and is analyzed in Table 5. East Valley Road is D -14 Link Table 3 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS PROPOSAL: 1.0 MSF RETAIL Project VTIP Volume Project Volume VTIP Orillia VTIP to Total Differential Volume Site Use Background Project Total Volume Impact (2) 24 hr Volume Volume (1) Volume Volume (%) (9) E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 28 11,842 287 12,129 2.4 2.2 34th - 41st 15,555 1,590 13,965 12,502 26,467 47.2 78.1 41st - 43rd 24,510 2,107 22,403 17,757 40,160 44.2 69.9 Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 27,920 886 27,034 2,051 29,085 7.1 4.3 16th - 19th 25,510 910 24,600 2,248 26,848 8.4 5.4 19th - 27th 25,245 933 24,322 2,428 26,750 9.1 6.1 27th - 34th 25,640 4,594 21,046 7,036 28,082 25.1 11.6 34th - 43rd 23,545 2,274 21,271 4,000 25,271 15.8 8.1 Oakesdale Avenue Grady Way - 16th 32,450 984 31,466 665 32,131 2.1 1.0 16th - 19th 31,950 1,184 30,766 712 31,478 2.3 1.5 0 19th - 27th 28,770 251 28,268 48 28,316 0.2 -0.7 1 27th - 34th 18,640 0 18,640 0 18,640 0.0 0 34th - 43rd 21,070 345 20,725 1,033 21,758 4.7 3.3 cri S.W. 27th Street W. Valley - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road 33,650 1,870 31,780 2,834 34,614 8.2 28,145 3,010 25,135 3,701 28,836 12.8 17,010 0 17,010 0 17,010 0 3.0 2.7 0 S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind 11,925 365 11,560 1,202 12,762 9.4 7.2 Lind - E. Valley Road 15,250 519 14,211 943 15,154 6.2 3.0 S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road E. Valley Road - SR-167 33,580 1,376 32,204 3,524 35,728 9.9 30,540 345 29,850 752 30,602 2.5 39,190 0 39,190 0 39,190 0 54,820 2,090 52,730 17,609 70,339 25.0 1 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 2 Project volume - VTIP site use volume divided by background volume. 6.7 1.4 0 29.4 Link E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 34th - 41st 41st - 43rd Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 16th - 19th 19th - 27th 27th - 34th 34th - 43rd Table 4 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS ALTERNATIVE 1: 1.5 MIL SF OFFICE VTIP Volume 24 hr VTIP Orillia Site Use Volume Project Volume Project Volume VTIP to Total Differential Background Project Total Volume Impact (2) Volume (1) Volume Volume ( %) (9a) 11,870 28 11,842 1,044 12,886 8.1 15,555 1,590 13,965 2,573 16,538 15.6 24,510 2,107 22,403 2,550 24,953 10.2 27,920 886 27,034 2,272 29,306 7.8 25,510 910 24,600 2,540 27,140 9.4 25,245 933 24,322 2,810 27,132 10.4 25,640 4,594 21,046 7,806 28,852 27.1 23,545 2,274 21,271 5,022 26,293 19.1 8.6 7.0 2.0 5.1 6.6 7.7 15.3 12.9 F Oakesdale Avenue Grady Way - 16th 32,450 984 31,466 1,946 33,412 5.8 3.1 oh 16th - 19th 31,950 1,184 30,766 2,082 32,848 6.3 2.9 19th - 27th 28,770 251 28,268 108 28,376 0.4 -0.5 27th - 34th 18,640 0 18,640 0 18,640 0 0 34th - 43rd 21,070 345 20,725 403 21,128 1.9 0.3 S.W. 27th Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,650 1,870 31,780 1,647 33,427 4.9 -0.7 Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 3,010 25,135 3,309 28,444 11.6 13.1 Lind - E. Valley Road 17,010 0 17,010 0 17,010 0 0 S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road 11,925 365 11,560 418 11,978 3.5 15,250 519 14,211 1160 15,371 7.5 0.5 4.5 S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,580 1,376 32,204 752 32,956 2.3 -1.9 Oakesdale - Lind 30,540 345 29,850 403 30,253 1.3 0.2 Lind - E. Valley Road 39,190 0 39,190 0 39,190 0 0 E. Valley Road - SR -167 54,820 2,090 52,730 2,388 55,118 0.0 0.6 1 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 2 Project volume - VTIP site use volume divided by background volume. Link Table 5 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS ALTERNATIVE 2: 0.3 MSF RETAIL, 0.57 MSF OFFICE Project VTIP Volume Project Volume VTIP Orillia VTIP to Total Differential Volume Site Use Background Project Total Volume Impact (2) 24 hr Volume Volume (1) Volume Volume (9) (9) E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 28 11,842 738 12,580 5.9 6.0 34th - 41st 15,555 1,590 13,965 6,395 20,360 31.4 34.4 41st - 43rd 24,510 2,107 22,403 8,466 30,869 27.4 28.4 Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 27,920 886 27,034 1,961 28,995 6.8 4.0 16th - 19th 25,510 910 24,600 2,173 26,773 8.1 5.1 19th - 27th 25,245 933 24,322 2,370 26,692 8.9 5.9 27th - 34th 25,640 4,594 21,046 6,737 27,783 24.2 10.2 34th - 43rd 23,545 2,274 21,271 5,278 26,549 19.9 14.1 Oakesdale Avenue o Grady Way - 16th 32,450 984 31,466 1,240 32,706 3.8 0.8 !, 16th - 19th 31,950 1,184 30,766 1,328 32,094 4.1 0.5 v 19th - 27th 28,770 251 28,268 74 28,342 0.3 -0.6 27th - 34th 18,640 0 18,640 0 18,640 0 0 34th - 43rd 21,070 345 20,725 1,044 21,769 4.8 3.4 S.W. 27th Street W. Valley - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road 33,650 1,870 31,780 2,772 34,552 8.0 28,145 3,010 25,135 3,152 28,287 11.1 17,010 0 17,010 0 17,010 0 2.8 0.6 0 S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind 11,925 365 11,560 1,302 12,862 10.1 8.1 Lind - E. Valley Road 15,250 519 14,211 671 14,882 4.5 1.1 S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road E. Valley Road - SR -167 33,580 1,376 32,204 1,808 34,012 5.3 30,540 345 29,850 812 30,662 2.6 39,190 0 39,190 0 39,190 0 54,820 2,090 52,730 8,328 61,058 13.6 1 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 2 Project volume - VTIP site use volume divided by background volume. 1.3 1.6 0 11.8 Link E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 34th - 41st 41st - 43rd Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 16th - 19th 19th - 27th 27th - 34th 34th - 43rd Table 6 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS ALTERNATIVE 3: 0.65 MSF RETAIL VTIP Volume 24 hr Project VTIP Volume Project Volume Orillia VTIP to Total Differential Site Use Background Project Total Volume Impact (2) Volume Volume (1) Volume Volume (96) (96) 11,870 28 11,842 187 12,029 1.5 15,555 1,590 13,965 8,089 22,054 36.7 24,510 2,107 22,403 11,492 33,895 33.9 1.3 46.5 41.9 27,920 886 27,034 1,328 28,362 4.7 1.6 25,510 910 24,600 1,454 26,054 5.6 2.2 25,245 933 24,322 1,571 25,893 6.1 2.6 25,640 4,594 21,046 4,552 25,598 17.8 -0.2 23,545 2,274 21,271 2,589 23,860 10.8 1.5 Oakesdale Avenue Grady Way - 16th 32,450 984 31,466 432 31,898 1.3 -1.7 1 16th - 19th 31,950 1,184 30,766 463 31,229 1.5 -2.3 19th - 27th 28,770 251 28,268 32 28,300 0.1 -0.8 27th - 34th 18,640 0 18,640 0 18,640 0 0 34th - 43rd 21,070 345 20,725 669 21,394 3.1 1.6 S.W. 27th Street W. Valley - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road E. Valley Road - SR-167 33,650 28,145 17,010 1,870 3,010 0 31,780 25,135 17,010 1,835 2,398 0 33,615 5.4 27,533 8.7 17,010 0 -0.1 -2.4 0 11,925 365 11,560 1,496 13,056 11.4 9.8 15,250 519 14,211 609 14,820 4.1 0.1 33,580 1,376 32,204 2,281 34,485 6.6 30,540 345 29,850 973 30,823 3.1 39,190 0 39,190 0 39,190 0 54,820 2,090 52,730 6,658 59,388 11.2 1 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 2 Project volume - VTIP site use volume divided by background volume. 2.8 2.1 0 8.7 the most heavily impacted link for this alternative. The average % D.I. for this link is 22.9 %. Lind Avenue and S.W. 41st Street show an average % D.I. of 7.9% and 4.6 %, respectively. The remaining 3 links not discussed are all less than +4 %. The overall average % D.I. for alternative 2 is +6.3 %. 4. Alternative 3 Link The third alternative is a 0.65 MSF retail center, as seen in Table 6. East Valley Road again is the most heavily impacted link with an average % D.I. of 29.9 %. The remaining 5 links show an average % D.I. of 5.0% or less. The overall average impact for this alternative is +5.0 %. Table 7 presents a summary of the link average percent differential impacts and the weighted average overall % D.I. for each site use scenario. Table 7 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY ( 01) Proposal Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 E. Valley Road 50.1 5.9 22.9 29.9 Lind Avenue 7.1 9.5 7.9 1.5 Oakesdale 1.0 1.2 0.8 -0.6 S.W. 27th Street 1.9 4.1 1.1 -0.8 S.W. 41st Street 5.1 2.5 4.6 5.0 S.W. 43rd Street 9.4 -0.3 3.7 3.4 Overall(2) 6.3 5.2 (1) The differential volume between project and VTIP divided by the background volume. (2) Weighted average based upon number of link segments within link. C. Level —of— Service Impacts by Link The VTIP level —of— service analysis approach was used in this study and consisted of a 2 —hour level —of— service E datum applied to roadway segment (link) volumes. This level —of service datum assumed a through lane capacity of 700 vph /lane and 200 vph for a left turn lane. Multiple lane roadway capacities included a 10 percent reduction factor for lane utilization. Estimated average weekday VTIP study traffic volumes for each link in the network were factored by 20 percent to estimate 2 —hour PM peak period traffic volumes and volume /capacity ratios given in subsequent tables 8 through 11. However, in the case of site generated traffic a 2 —hour PM peak factor of 27% was used for office uses and a factor of 17% was used for retail uses to more accurately reflect the peaking characteristics of these generators. Discussed below are only the links, for each alternative, that decrease in LOS due to project traffic impacts. For each alternative the SW 43rd Street link over SR -167 requires major interchange improvements to increase the LOS to E or better. Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11 provide the information below in tabular form. As may be noted in Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11, Southwest 41st Street from Lind Avenue to East Valley Road shows an increase in LOS from D to A with an increase in volumes, indicating an error. The VTIP LOS D calculation was incorrectly computed using 3 lane roadway AWT capacity rather than the capacity for this existing 5 lane section. The correct LOS on the link is A. With the addition of project volumes on this link, the LOS remains at A, indicating minimal project traffic impact. The needed number of lanes for LOS E or better operation is 3. PROPOSAL: 1.0 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE With trip generated by the proposal added to background traffic volumes, level —of— service decreases on 7 links. As shown in Table 8, these links include: East Valley Road: From SW 34th Street to SW 41st Street — Traffic on this link increased 90% driving the LOS down from D to F. Therefore the recommended number of lanes has been increased from 3 to 5. East Valley Road: From SW 41st Street to SW 43rd Street — Traffic volumes on this link have increased 79% causing the LOS to drop from D to F. Therefore the recommended number of lanes has been increased from 5 to 7. Lind Avenue: From SW 16th Street to SW 19th Street — Traffic volumes on this link have increased an average of 9%, enough for the LOS to drop from D to E. The number of lanes recommended for this link equals the number of existing lanes (5). Lind Avenue: From SW 19th Street to SW 27th Street — Traffic volumes on this link have increased an average of 10%, enough for the LOS to drop from D to E. The number of lanes recommended for this link equals the number of existing lanes (5). Lind Avenue: From SW 27th Street to SW 34th Street — Traffic volumes on this link have increased an average of 24%, enough for the LOS to drop from D to E. The number of lanes recommended for this link equals the number of existing lanes (5). Oakesdale Avenue: From SW 34th Street to SW 43rd Street — Traffic volumes on this link have increased 10 %, enough for the LOS to drop from B to C. The needed number of lanes although, need not be greater than 4 and, therefore, it has not been changed. VTIP recommends 5 lanes. D -21 Link Table 8 VTIP PROPOSAL: 1.0 MSF RETAIL Volume Background Project Total 24 hr XL 1 V/C LOS 2 yL 3 Volume 4 Volume Volume V/C (5) LOS 2 yL 3 E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 3 0.66 B 2 11,842 287 12,129 0.67 B 2 34th - 41st 15,555 3 0.86 D 3 13,965 12,502 26,467 1.47 F 5 41st - 43rd 24,510 5 0.84 D 4 22,403 17,757 40,160 1.37 F 7 Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 27,920 5 0.96 E 5 27,034 2,051 29,085 0.99 E 5 16th - 19th 25,510 5 0.87 D 5 24,600 2,248 26,848 0.92 E 5 19th - 27th 25,245 5 0.87 D 5 24,322 2,428 26,750 0.92 E 5 27th - 34th 25,640 5 0.88 D 5 21,046 5,146 26,192 0.90 E 5 34th - 43rd 23,545 5 0.81 D 4 21,271 1,712 22,983 0.79 C 4 Oakesdale Avenue Grady Way - 16th 32,450 5 1.08 F 6 31,466 665 32,131 1.10 F 6 16th - 19th 31,950 5 1.08 F 6 30,766 712 31,478 1.08 F 6 19th - 27th 28,770 5 0.97 E 5 28,268 48 28,316 0.97 E 5 27th - 34th 18,640 5 0.63 B 4 18,640 0 18,640 0.64 B 4 34th - 43rd 21,070 5 0.72 B 4 20,725 2,067 22,792 0.78 C 4 S.W. 27th Street C7 W. Valley - 33,650 5 1.09 F 6 31,780 2,834 34,614 1.19 F 6 I Oakesdale N Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 5 0.90 E 5 25,135 2,956 28,091 0.96 E 5 N Lind - E. Valley Road 17,010 5 0.53 A 3 17,010 0 17,010 0.58 A 3 S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind 11,925 3 0.66 B 2 11,560 2,310 13,870 0.77 C 2 Lind - E. Valley Road 15,250 5 0.85 D - 3 14,211 943 15,154 0.52 A 3 S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,580 5 1.15 F 6 32,204 2,490 34,694 1.19 F 6 Oakesdale - Lind 30,540 5 1.05 F 6 29,850 3,524 33,374 1.14 F 6 Lind - E. Valley Road 39,190 5 1.60 F 7 39,190 1,504 40,694 1.39 F 7 .E. Valley Rd - SR -167 54,820 - - - (6) 52,730 17,609 70,339 1 xL - Recommended number of lanes from VTIP. 2 LOS - Level - of-service with VTIP recommended number of lanes. 3 yL - Needed number of lanes for LOS E or better. 4 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 5 Volume capacity ratio assuming VTIP recommended number of lanes (XL). 6 Major interchange improvement required. SW 41st Street: From Oakesdale Avenue to Lind Avenue — Traffic volumes on this link have increased 20%, enough to decrease the LOS from B to C. The recommended number of lanes for LOS E or better need only be 2. The VTIP recommends 3 lanes. ALTERNATIVE 1: 1.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE With the first alternative, project traffic plus background traffic have increased the level —of— service on 8 links. As shown in Table 9 these include: East Valley Road: SW 27th Street to SW 34th Street — Project traffic has increased the total AWT volume 9%, enough to cause the LOS to drop from B to C. The needed number of lanes for LOS E or better remains at 2. VTIP recommends 3 lanes. East Valley Road: SW 34th Street to SW 41st Street — Traffic AWT volumes increase 18% with the Alternative 1 project traffic. The resulting LOS drops from D to E yet the needed number of lanes and recommended number of lanes remain unchanged at 3. Lind Avenue: Grady Way to SW 16th Street — Traffic volumes increase 8% resulting in a LOS drop from E to F. Therefore, in order to bring the LOS back to E 6 lanes is require. The VTIP recommendations include 5 lanes. Lind Avenue: SW 16th Street to SW 19th Street — The traffic volume has increased 10% with Alternative 1 project volumes resulting in a LOS drop from D to E. The minimum number of lanes required for LOS E or better remains at 5. Lind Avenue: SW 19th Street to SW 27th Street — the volumes on this link have increased 12% with project traffic. This has caused the LOS to drop from D to E. The number of lanes has not changed. D -23 Link Table 9 VTIP ALTERNATIVE 1: 1.5 MIL SF OFFICE Volume background Project Total 24 hr XL 1 V/C LOS 2 yL 3 Volume 4 Volume Volume V/C LOS 2 yL 3 E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 3 0.66 B 2 11,842 1,044 12,886 0.73 C 2 34th - 41st 15,555 3 0.86 D 3 13,965 2,573 _ 16,538 0.96 E 3 41st - 43rd 24,510 5 0.84 D 4 22,403 2,550 24,953 0.85 D 4 Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 27,920 5 0.96 E 5 27,034 2,272 29,306 1.03 F 6 16th - 19th 25,510 5 0.87 D 5 24,600 2,540 27,140 0.96 E 5 19th - 27th 25,245 5 0.87 D 5 24,322 2,810 27,132 0.96 E 5 27th - 34th 25,640 5 0.88 D 5 21,046 7,806 28,852 1.07 F 6 34th - 43rd 23,545 5 0.81 D 4 21,271 5,022 26,293 0.95 E 6 Oakesdale Avenue Grady Way - 16th 32,450 5 1.08 F 6 31,466 1,946 33,412 1.16 F 6 16th - 19th 31,950 5 1.08 F 6 30,766 2,082 32,848 1.15 F 6 19th - 27th 28,770 5 0.97 E 5 28,268 108 28,376 0.97 E 5 27th - 34th 18,640 5 0.63 B 4 18,640 0 18,640 0.64 B 4 34th - 43rd 21,070 5 0.72 B 4 20,725 403 21,128 0.73 C 4 S.W. 27th Street o W. Valley - 33,650 5 1.09 F 6 31,780 1,647 33,427 1.16 F 6 pa Oakesdale 4' Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 5 0.90 E 5 25,315 3,309 28,444 1.01 F 5 Lind - E. Valley Road 17,010 5 0.53 A 3 17,010 0 17,010 0.58 A 3 S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road 11,925 3 0.66 B 2 11,560 418 11,978 0.67 B 2 15,250 5 0.85 D 3 14,211 1,160 15,371 0.54 A 3 S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,580 5 1.15 F 6 32,204 752 32,956 1.14 F 6 Oakesdale - Lind 30,540 5 1.05 F 6 29,850 403 30,253 1.04 F 6 Lind - E. Valley Road 39,190 5 1.60 F 7 39,190 0 39,190 1.34 F 7 E. Valley Rd. - SR -167 54,820 - - - (6) 52,730 2,388 55,118 1 xL - Recommended number of lanes from VTIP. 2 LOS - Level -of- service with VTIP recommended number of lanes. 3 yL - Needed number of lanes for LOS E or better. 4 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 5 Volume capacity ratio assuming VTIP recommended number of lanes (XL). 6 Major interchange improvement required. - - _ Lind Avenue: SW 27th Street to SW 34th Street — The volumes on this link have increase 37% with project traffic. This increase is enough to drop the LOS from D to F and increase the needed number of lanes from 5 to 6. Lind Avenue: SW 34th Street to SW 43rd Street — Traffic volumes on this link have increased 24% resulting in a LOS drop from D to E and an increase in the needed number of lanes from 4 to 6. Oakesdale Avenue: SW 34th Street to SW 43rd Street — The volumes on this link have increased 2% with the addition of project traffic to background volumes, enough to drop the LOS from B to C. The needed number of lanes is 4. SW 27th Street: SW Oakesdale Avenue to Lind Avenue — Traffic volumes on this link have increased 12% resulting in a LOS drop from E to F. The needed number of lanes is 5. ALTERNATIVE 2: 300,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE PLUS 570,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE With the second alternative, project traffic plus background traffic have decreased the level —of— service on 9 links. As shown in Table 10, these include: East Valley Road: SW 27th Street to SW 34th Street — Project traffic has increased the AWT volume on this link by 6 %, enough to cause the LOS to drop from B to C. The needed number of lanes for LOS E or better remains at 2. The VTIP recommends 3 lanes. East Valley Road: SW 34th Street to SW 41st Street — Traffic volumes on this link have increased 46% with Alternative 2 project traffic, enough for the LOS to drop from D to F. The needed number of lanes is increased from 3 to 4 lanes for this alternative impact. D -25 Link Table 10 VTIP ALTERNATIVE 2: 0.3 MSF RETAIL, 0.57 MSF OFFICE Volume background Project Total 24 hr XL 1 V/C LOS 2 Y1-2_ Volume 4 Volume Volume V/C LOS 2 yL 3 E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 3 0.66 B 2 11,842 738 12,580 0.70 C 2 34th - 41st 15,555 3 0.86 D 3 13,965 6,395 20,360 1.13 F 4 41st - 43rd 24,510 5 0.84 D 4 22,403 8,466 30,869 1.06 F 6 Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 27,920 5 0.96 E 5 27,034 1,961 28,995 0.99 E 5 16th - 19th 25,510 5 0.87 D 5 24,600 2,173 26,773 0.92 E 5 19th - 27th 25,245 5 0.87 D 5 24,322 2,370 26,692 0.91 E 5 27th - 34th 25,640 5 0.88 D 5 21,046 6,737 27,783 0.95 E 5 34th - 43rd 23,545 5 0.81 D 4 21,271 5,278 26,549 0.91 E 5 Oakesdale Avenue Grady Way - 16th 32,450 5 1.08 F 6 31,466 1,240 32,706 1.12 F 6 16th - 19th 31,950 5 1.08 F 6 30,766 1,328 32,094 1.10 F 6 19th - 27th 28,770 5 0.97 E 5 28,268 74 28,342 0.97 E 5 27th - 34th 18,640 5 0.63 B 4 18,640 0 18,640 0.64 B 4 34th - 43rd 21,070 5 0.72 B 4 20,725 1,044 21,769 0.75 C 4 S.W. 27th Street CD W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,650 5 1.09 F 6 31,780 2,772 34,552 1.18 F 6 na Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 5 0.90 E 5 25,135 3,152 28,287 0.97 E 5 cm Lind - E. Valley Road 17,010 5 0.53 A 3 17,010 0 17,010 0.58 A 3 S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road 11,925 3 0.66 B 2 11,560 1,302 12,862 0.71 C 15,250 5 0.85 D 3 14,211 671 14,882 0.51 A 2 3 S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,580 5 1.15 F 6 32,204 1,808 34,012 1.16 F 6 Oakesdale - Lind 30,540 5 1.05 F 6 29,850 812 30,662 1.05 F 6 Lind - E. Valley Road 39,190 5 1.60 F 7 39,190 0 39,190 1.34 F 7 E. Valley - SR -167 54,820 - - - (6) 52,730 8,328 61,058 - - - 1 xL - Recommended number of lanes from VTIP. 2 LOS - Level -of- service with VTIP recommended number of lanes. 3 yL - Needed number of lanes for LOS E or better. 4 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 5 Volume capacity ratio assuming VTIP recommended number of lanes (XL). 6 Major interchange improvement required. East Valley Road: SW 41st Street to SW 43rd Street — Project traffic on this link has increased 38 %, resulting in a decrease in LOS from D to F. The needed number of lanes for LOS E or better is increased from 5 to 6 lanes for this alternative impact. Lind Avenue: SW 16th Street to SW 19th Street — Project traffic on this link has increased 9%, enough for the LOS to drop from D to E. The needed number of lanes remains at 5 as recommended in the VTIP. Lind Avenue: SW 19th Street to SW 27th Street — Traffic volumes on this link have increased 10 %, enough for the LOS to drop from D to E. The needed number of lanes equals the 5 lanes recommended in the VTIP. Lind Avenue: SW 27th Street to SW 34th Street — Project traffic on this link has increased 32% resulting in a decrease from LOS D to E. The number of lanes needed remains at 5 lanes as recommended. Lind Avenue: SW 34th Street to SW 43rd Street — Project traffic on this link has increased 25% resulting in a decrease from LOS D to E. The number of lanes needed remains at 5 lanes as recommended. Oakesdale Avenue: SW 34th Street to SW 43rd Street — Project traffic has increased only 5% on this link, enough to drop from LOS B to C. Needed number of lanes is 4, one less than recommended in the VTIP. SW 41st Street: Oakesdale Avenue to Lind Avenue — An increase of 11% in traffic volumes on this link results in a drop from LOS B to C. The number of lanes needed for LOS E or better operation remains at 2. The VTIP recommends 3 lanes. ALTERNATIVE 3: 650,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE With the third alternative, project traffic plus background traffic has resulted in decreased level —of— service for the fewest number of links (4). As shown in Table 11, these include: East Valley Road: SW 34th Street to SW 41st Street — Project traffic has increased 60% on this link with the addition of Alternative 3 traffic. The LOS drops from LOS D to F. The needed number of lanes for LOS E or better is 4 lanes. The VTIP recommends 3 lanes. East Valley Road: SW 41st Street to SW 43rd Street — Traffic on this link has increased 51%, resulting in a drop from LOS D to F. The needed number of lanes is 6 lanes, while the VTIP recommends 5 lanes. Oakesdale Avenue: SW 34th Street to SW 43rd Street — With the addition of project trafffic, volumes on this link have increased 3%, enough to decrease the level —of— service from B to C. The number of lanes required for LOS E or better service is 4. SW 41st Street: Oakesdale Avenue to Lind Avenue — Traffic on this link is increased by 13%, resulting in a drop from LOS B to C. The needed number of lanes remains at 2 while the VTIP recommends 3 lanes. Table 12 presents a summary of volumes and level —of— service for the proposed rezone action and the three alternatives to facilitate comparison of impacts. = Link Table 11 VTIP ALTERNATIVE 3: 0.65 MSF RETAIL Volume Background Project Total 24 hr XL 1 V/C LOS 2 yL 3 Volume 4 Volume Volume V/C LOS 2 yL 3 E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 3 0.66 B 2 11,842 187 12,029 0.67 B 2 34th - 41st 15,555 3 0.86 D 3 13,965 8,089 22,054 1.22 F 4 41st - 43rd 24,510 5 0.84 D 4 22,403 11,492 33,895 1.16 F 6 Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 27,920 5 0.96 E 5 27,034 1,328 28,362 0.97 E 5 16th - 19th 25,510 5 0.87 D 5 24,600 1,454 26,054 0.89 D 5 19th - 27th. 25,245 5 0.87 D 5 24,322 1,571 25,893 0.89 D 4 27th - 34th 25,640 5 0.88 D 5 21,046 4,552 25,598 0.88 D 4 34th - 43rd 23,545 5 0.81 D 4 21,271 2,589 23,860 0.82 D 4 Oakesdale Avenue Grady Way - 16th 32,450 5 1.08 F 6 31,466 432 31,898 1.09 F 6 16th - 19th 31,950 5 1.08 F 6 30,766 463 31,229 1.07 F 6 19th - 27th 28,770 5 0.97 E 5 28,268 32 28,300 0.97 E 5 27th - 34th 18,640 5 0.63 B 4 18,640 0 18,640 0.64 B 4 34th - 43rd 21,070 5 0.72 B 4 20,725 669 21,394 0.73 C 4 S.W. 27th Street o W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,650 5 1.09 F 6 31,780 1,835 33,615 1.15 F 6 I Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 5 0.90 E 5 25,135 2,398 27,533 0.94 E 5 UD Lind - E. Valley Road 17,010 5 0.53 A 3 17,010 0 17,010 0.58 A 3 S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind Lind - E. Valley Road 11,925 15,250 0.66 B 2 11,560 1,496 13,056 0.73 C 2 0.85 D 3 14,211 609 14,820 0.51 A 3 S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,580 5 1.15 F 6 32,204 2,281 34,485 1.18 F 6 Oakesdale - Lind 30,540 5 1.05 F 6 29,850 973 30,823 1.06 F 6 Lind - E. Valley Road 39,190 5 1.60 F 7 39,190 0 39,190 1.34 F 7 E. Valley Rd. - SR -167 54,820 - - - (6) 52,730 6,658 59,388 1 xL - Recommended number of lanes from VTIP. 2 LOS - Level -of- service with VTIP recommended number of lanes. 3 yL - Needed number of lanes for LOS E or better. 4 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 5 Volume capacity ratio assuming VTIP recommended number of lanes (XL). 6 Major interchange improvement required. Link Table 12 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS -OF- SERVICE FOR VTIP AND DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES VTIP Proposal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Total 1 Total 1 Total 1 Total 1 Total 1 Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 B 12,129 B 12,886 C 12,580 C 12,029 B 34th - 41st 15,555 D 26,467 F 16,538 E 20,360 F 22,054 F 41st - 43rd 24,510 D 40,160 F 24,953 D 30,869 F 33,895 F Lind Avenue S. Grady Way - 16th 27,920 E 29,085 E 29,306 F 28,995 E 28,362 E 16th - 19th 25,510 D 26,848 E 27,140 E 26,773 E 26,054 D 19th - 27th 25,245 D 26,750 E 27,132 E 26,692 E 25,893 D 27th - 34th 25,640 D 26,192 E 28,852 F 27,783 E 25,598 D 34th - 43rd 23,545 D 22,983 C 26,293 E 26,549 E 23,860 D Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Grady Way - 16th 32,450 F 32,131 F 33,412 F 32,706 F 31,898 F 16th - 19th 31,950 F 31,478 F 32,848 F 32,094 F 31,229 F 19th - 27th 28,770 E 28,316 E 28,376 E 28,342 E 28,300 E o 27th - 34th 18,640 B 18,640 B 18,640 B 18,640 B 18,640 B w 34th - 43rd 21,070 B 21,758 C 21,128 C 21,769 C 21,394 C 0 S.W. 27th Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,650 F 34,614 F 33,427 F 34,552 F 33,615 F Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 E 28,091 E 28,444 F 28,287 E 27,533 E Lind - E. Valley Road 17,010 A 17,010 A 17,010 A 17,010 A 17,010 A S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind 2 11,925 B 13,870 C 11,978 B 12,862 C 13,056 C Lind - E. Valley Road 15,250 D 15,154 A 15,371 A 14,882 A 14,820 A S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,580 F 34,694 F 32,956 F 34,012 F 34,485 F Oakesdale - Lind 30,540 F 33,374 F 30,253 F 30,662 F 30,823 F Lind - E. Valley Road 39,190 F 40,694 F 39,190 F 39,190 F 39,190 F E. Valley Rd - SR -167 54,820 - 70,339 - 55,118 - 61,058 - 59,383 - 1 LOS - Level -of- service with VTIP recommended number of lanes. 2 Southwest 41st Street from Lind Avenue South to East Valley Road shows an increase in LOS from D to A with an increase in volumes indicating an error. The VTIP LOS D calculation was incorrectly computed using three -lane roadway AWT capacity rather than the capacity for this existing five - lane section. The correct LOS on the link is A. With the addition of project volumes on this link, the LOS remains at A. Source: William E. Popp Associates, 1988. ,, D. Alternative Traffic Impact Methodology In an attempt to further refine the offsite impacts of the retail use, an unusual methodology was employed to account for the effect of trips which are diverted from other centers. That methodology consisted of developing a trip distribution model for comparison shopping trips in the Orillia Center market area for the condition without a retail center on the Orillia site. The trip assignment from this model was subtracted from the proposal trip assignment to yield the net traffic impacts of the proposed action. This approach is plausible when one considers that there is a limited supply of shopping trips and shopping centers compete for those trips which are theoretically being made on a daily basis to one center or another. For examply, by adding the Orillia Center a certain number of shopping trips traveling through the VTIP study area to other shopping destinations will be diverted to shop at the Orillia Center resulting in only 2 study area boundary crossings as opposed to 4 without the center. The estimated net effect of this diversion at the VTIP study area boundary is a reduction of approximately 2,000 daily trip crossings. Further disaggregate analysis of PSCOG data and modeling experimentation is necessary to produce results that correlate with or explain the observed trip diversion and drop -in reduction percentages as quantified in ITE Journal articles. Some selected percentage comparisons are noted below in Table 13. Trip Type New Trips Diverted Trips (4) Drop —In Trips (5) Table 13 SHOPPING TRIP PERCENTAGES BY CENTER SIZE Center Size: 100 -200 ksf 100 -400 ksf 1.2 msf (1) (2) (3) PM PK Daily PM PK PM PK 7 6 — 35 27 36 — 40 66 58 49 25 (1) Kittleson, Lawton; ITE Journal February 1987. (2) JHK & Associates; Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, February 1984. (3) Slade & Gorove; ITE Journal, January 1981. (4) Trips on street system for another trip purpose and making route diversion to shop. (5) Trips on street system for another trip purpose passing by Center and stopping to shop. The above data suggests that PM peak hour net offsite impacts and possibly the daily impacts of the proposed regional scale retail center could be substantially less than indicated by the analysis to this point. Daily trip making surveys of larger centers are needed to determine the relationships of the above trip types over the full day, however. Another methodology alternative of merit is the use of regional model based forecast volumes for the background traffic component as opposed to use of the VTIP volumes as contained in this report. The manual impact analysis approach used in the VTIP analysis results in substantial over — estimation of traffic as 95% of the new generated trips in the study area are assumed to leave the study area. In reality as many as 1/3 of the study area's new trips have been estimated by the Transpo Group's travel model to connect to other new land uses in the study area. This recent travel model as developed for the VTIP update effort is recommended (with adjustments for land use assumptions) for establishment of background traffic for project level EIS work. II.E. BICYCLE /PEDESTRIAN AND RAILROAD FACILITIES The development of Orillia Center on the flat terrain of the Valley Floor is expected to encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic. A higher volume of bicycle /pedestrian traffic may be expected with the development of Orillia Center as office space versus retail space. Desireable bicycle /pedestrian improvements to the surrounding street system include bicycle and pedestrian trails as outlined in the Valley Comprehensive Plan, the City of Renton Draft City —Wide Comprehensive Master Trails Plan, and King County's General Bicycle Plan — Focus 1990, which would link the Orillia Center area to the Interurban Trail and City of Renton north of I -405. As development occurs on the Valley Floor, more linkages are expected to be completed, making bicycle and pedestrian travel more safe and enjoyable. Development of the Orillia Center site under the proposed action or Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 concepts is expected to require removal of the three Burlington Northern Railroad spurs on the rezone site. There is no indication of any discussion between the City of Renton and Burlington Northern Railroad regarding the removal of these spurs. Removal of the northern spur would impact several large warehouse —type business north of the proposed rezone site which reportedly use the spurs daily between 7 PM and 7 AM. Removal of the southern spur, which terminates on the proposed rezone site, is not expected to have any impact on businesses in the area. III. MITIGATION MEASURES A. Proportionate Share Differential volume impacts and percentage relationships of rezone proposal volume to total volume are noted in Table 14 following for the 1.0 million square foot retail proposal. Table 4, 5 and 6 denoting the same information for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, respectively, are located in Section II.B. of this report. B. Needed Off —Site Improvements Needed numbers of lanes on a link —by —link basis to provide 2 —hour PM peak level —of— service E or better for the rezone proposal are given in Table 8, column yL. Needed off site improvements which must be made for the rezone only are actually adjacent to the site and consist of 2 links on E. Valley Road: (1) From SW 34th St to SW 41st St; widen from 3 to 5 lanes and, (2) From SW 41st St to SW 43rd St; widen from 5 lanes to 7 lanes. Link Table 14 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS PROPOSAL: 1.0 MSF RETAIL Project VTIP Volume Project Volume VTIP Orillia VTIP to Total Differential Volume Site Use Background Project Total Volume Impact (2) 24 hr Volume Volume (1) Volume Volume (96) (%) E. Valley Road 27th - 34th 11,870 28 11,842 287 12,129 2.4 2.2 34th - 41st 15,555 1,590 13,965 12,502 26,467 47.2 78.1 41st - 43rd 24,510 2,107 22,403 17,757 40,160 44.2 69.9 Lind Avenue Grady Way - 16th 27,920 886 27,034 2,051 29,085 7.1 4.3 16th - 19th 25,510 910 24,600 2,248 26,848 8.4 5.4 19th - 27th 25,245 933 24,322 2,428 26,750 9.1 6.1 27th - 34th 25,640 4,594 21,046 7,036 28,082 25.1 11.6 34th - 43rd 23,545 2,274 21,271 4,000 25,271 15.8 8.1 Oakesdale Avenue o Grady Way - 16th 32,450 984 31,466 665 32,131 2.1 1.0 16th - 19th 31,950 1,184 30,766 712 31,478 2.3 1.5 an 19th - 27th 28,770 251 28,268 48 28,316 0.2 -0.7 27th - 34th 18,640 0 18,640 0 18,640 0.0 0 34th - 43rd 21,070 345 20,725 1,033 21,758 4.7 3.3 S.W. 27th Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,650 1,870 31,780 2,834 34,614 8.2 3.0 Oakesdale - Lind 28,145 3,010 25,135 3,701 28,836 12.8 2.7 Lind - E. Valley Road 17,010 0 17,010 0 17,010 0 0 S.W. 41st Street Oakesdale - Lind 11,925 365 • 11,560 1,202 12,762 9.4 7.2 Lind - E. Valley Road 15,250 519 14,211 943 15,154 6.2 3.0 S.W. 43rd Street W. Valley - Oakesdale 33,580 1,376 32,204 3,524 35,728 9.9 6.7 Oakesdale - Lind 30,540 345 29,850 752 30,602 2.5 1.4 Lind - E. Valley Road 39,190 0 39,190 0 39,190 0 0 E. Valley Road - SR -167 54,820 2,090 52,730 17,609 70,339 25.0 29.4 1 VTIP volume less Orillia site traffic from VTIP. 2 Project volume - VTIP site use volume divided by background volume. - - - - - - - III. C. POTENTIAL TSM, HOV STRATEGIES Various strategies are available to effectively reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to the proposed development. The Valley Transportation Improvements Program Report cites two factors that produce the best results when working to achieve a reduction of SOV's; high density development and limited parking supply. The study goes on to state that "...any strategies that would result in a reduction of daily automobile trips to the Study Area would have a city -wide benefit..." The report suggests that as individual parcels develop, two methods of reducing SOV would be to provide incentives that will increase transit use and increase the average car occupancy. These can be accomplished by employing physical improvements; HOV lanes, improved transit service, and behavioral incentives; transit pass subsidies, preferential car /vanpool parking, parking fees, and information services. Regional commitment to physical improvements are being accomplished with plans by WSDOT to widen and add HOV lanes to SR -405 and SR -167. The City of Renton and adjoining jurisdictions are considering adding an HOV bypass lane on Southwest 43rd at the SR 167 northbound ramps. These regional improvements, when combined with needed behavioral incentives employed at the development review stage, can produce desired reductions of single- occupant vehicles. An interjurisdictional study undertaken by the South King County Transportation Task Force to evaluate transportation and HOV needs in the Southwest 43rd, Petrovitsky, Carr Road Corridor did produce the following strategies that could be considered as potential mitigation measures for the Orillia project. Employer - Developer Policies for Marketing HOV's Support a model transportation system management ordinance that would require large employers to do the following: 1. Survey employee commuting patterns. 2. Disseminate information on transit, car /vanpool opportunities. 3. Promote transit, car /vanpools through rescheduled work hours to reduce peak -hour traffic. 4. Appoint Transportation Coordinator. 5. Report to City annually on program plans and results. 6. Participate in City task force on traffic problems. Clearly, the opportunities to employ transit and HOV incentives are greater in the more controlled environment of office or manufacturing situations as opposed to the more diverse environment of a retail center. However, some important opportunities for transportation management do exist in a retail setting. As an example, the following outlines what is being proposed by Town Center, a retail development in Redmond, as a program to reduce the percentage of employees and customers who commute to work or shopping in single- occupant vehicles. With their program, it is anticipated that 30% of all employees of the center will commute in other than single - occupant. vehicles within two years after implementation of the program. Elements of their program are: 1. Transportation Coordinator - -to be appointed prior to opening of the center. 2. Community Information Center. 3. Ride match program. 4. Transit subsidy - -at 25% of cost of transit to all employees. 5. Preferential parking - -up to a maximum of 5% of the total parking spaces on site -- vanpools will be subsidized at 25% for all employees of the center. 6. Flex -time (primarily for office worker -flex time is generally inherent in retail scheduling). 7. Bicycle racks (racks will be available for a minimum of 7.5 percent of peak on -site employees). D -38 The center will review results of its program with the City on an annual basis. Town Center is working with Metro to improve transit availability and expects the center to generate 1,000 to 2,000 daily transit person trips. The above example proposed by Town Center, combined with the employer - developer policies for marketing HOV's as proposed in the Southwest 43rd Street corridor analysis, provide a variety of mitigation options to be considered by the City of Renton for the current Orillia Retail proposal. If a similar target were set for Orillia, that is, 30% of all employees commuting in other than SOV's within two years after implementation of a TSM program, the proposed action would yield a reduction of 660 SOV's. The following Table 15 presents the reduction that could be achieved in each alternative. Table 15 Reduction of Single Occupant Vehicle With a 30% Target Reduction of Alternative Number of Employees SOV's Proposed Action 2,200 660 Alternative 2 6,680 2,004 Alternative 2 3,180 954 Alternative 3 1,440 432 Although 30% may be an optimistic target for retail in the Valley area, an aggressive program could achieve the desired results. Significant control and management of employee parking would be needed. The office alternatives for the site could provide the opportunity for the City to consider parking reductions as a means for encouraging less single- occupant vehicles. In a Federal Highway Administration document titled "Evaluation of Priority Treatments for High Occupancy Vehicles," they state: "Looking to the future, if the concept of priority treatments for HOV's is to make a significant regional impact, commitments are needed to pursue comprehensive area -wide HOV programs." Regional commitments to HOV improvements are in the regional plan for SR -405 and SR -167, with advanced design studies underway for SR 405. Arterial HOV routes, and developer incentive HOV programs as recommended in the Southwest 43rd Street /Petrovitsky HOV Analysis Report should continue to be "built in" as the network and developments proceed. D. Alternative Mitigation Extension of South 192nd Street across the Valley Freeway (SR 167) to East Valley Road as proposed by the plans of the Puget Sound Council of Governments and local jurisdictions and improvement of the easterly portions of the corridor are estimated to result in substantial diversions of traffic from SW 43nd Street, reducing that corridor's potential overloads to manageable levels, perhaps. In addition, major widening for general purpose traffic and intersection upgrades for SR 167 and I -405 would have significant beneficial impacts for VTIP study area traffic. These latter freeway improvement proposals, however, run counter to current regional policy which assumes widening for transit and carpool lanes only. IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS None of the street capacity related impacts are conclusively unavoidable, as road construction funds for needed principal arterial system projects would can be greatly and efficiently increased through the state motor vehicle fuel tax. While several recent attempts to increase the tax have failed, the political support is generally expected to grow with the increasing statewide system deficiency. ATTACHMENT A November 25, 1987' SCOPE OF SERVICES a.. Affected Environment 1. The current policy for transportation analysis in the Valley is the "Valley Transportation Improvement Program" Study (VTIP). Discuss the existing valley road system and existing deficiencies, and the projected needed improvements as adopted by VTIP. Also discuss bicycle, pedestrian, railroad existing conditions in this section. 2. Identify the projected traffic from the site developed as projected in the VTIP program b. Significant Impacts 1. Estimate project AWDT and peak 2 hour trip generation and distribution, and assign to the Valley road system as defined by VTIP for the comprehensive plan /rezone scenarios, The modeling method will be approved by the City. 2. Discuss the differential impact on the entire Valley arterial road system between the AWOT traffic generated by the site as identified in the VTIP and the AWOT indentified in the comprehensive plan /rezone action and alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 3. Analyze impact of comprehensive plan /rezone proposal and site alternatives 1, 2, 3 an level —of— service (LOS) on a link basis using capacity analysis method from VTIP. Routes to be analyzed include SW 27th Street from West Valley Highway to SR 167, Oakesdale from Grady Way to East Valley Road, Lind from Grady Way to East Valley Road, SW 43rd from West Valley Highway to SR 167, East Valley Road from 27th to Oakesdale, and SW 41st from Oakesdale to Valley Freeway. 4. -Discuss alternative methodologies for estimating' traffic impacts. 5. Discuss bicycle, pedestrian, railroad facility needs and /or impacts. 1 c. Mitiaatino Measures 1. Apply the City policies for mitigation as defined by the VTIP to the impacts of this project on the Valley road system as a proportion of the total AWDT and as a percentage over that AWDT which was forecast for the site in VTIP. 2. Identify necessary off —site link improvements which must be made for rezone only. 3. Identify potential transportation system management. (TSM), including HOV, and other policy measures which might be useful in mitigating project impacts. 4. Identify alternative means of mitigating impacts. Appendix E ECONOMIC IMPACT TECHNICAL REPORT INTRODUCTION This appendix supplements data presented in the Economics section of the Draft EIS on the City of Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone that would, if adopted, allow for the development of a regional commercial center. The appendix is organized into two sections: the first addresses employment that would be associated with the operation of a regional retail center and office center as defined by the Alternatives presented in the Draft EIS. The second section examines the likely fiscal impacts on the City of Renton associated with the operation of a regional commercial center and alternatives as defined in the Draft EIS. EMPLOYMENT The assessment of employment impacts focuses on employment requirements associated with the operation of the regional commercial center and its alternatives, as defined in the DEIS. Construction employment is not examined as part of this evaluation. As part of the evaluation, the authors have contacted and consulted a variety of sources in order to develop employment numbers. Our sources include both documents as well as representatives of trade organizations, local agencies and operators of malls in the King County area. Source material and contacts are identified in the references section of this report. Regional Commercial Development Based on interviews of operators of malls in the area, there appears to be a considerable range in the employment numbers for regional commercial centers (see Table E -1). Strictly speaking, there does not appear to be a common multiplier that captures employment for regional commercial centers. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) also was contacted to determine the availability of normative regional center employment data. The ULI has no information on average employment in regional centers; however, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), a trade organization, has considerable confidence in the multiplier of 500 square feet of regional commercial space for each employee. Their "standard rule of thumb" figure is based on a survey of centers across the nation and has been confirmed to be constant from region to region throughout the country (Chapman, 1988). The ICSC cautioned that any employment numbers derived from the interviews of operators of malls may be intentionally or inadvertently skewed. N Source Alderwood Mall (Steve Klaniecki) Bel Square (Steve Cohn) Everett Mall (Maria Lamarca- Anderson) Intl. Council of Shopping Centers (John Chapman) King County (Mike Alvine) ITE Trip Generation Manual Northgate (Sam Michaels) SeaTac Mall (Sally Mantz) Southcenter (Tom Jarosinski) Towne Center DEIS Table E -1 EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CENTERS Number of Employees Minimum Average Maximum N/A 1,200 Floor Area gla gsf Area /Employee N/A 4,000 nlsf 1.1M max =275 gsf /employee 1,850 3,000 1.1M 1.2M max =915 nlsf /employee =1,000 gsf /employee avg =595 nlsf /employee =650 gsf /employee max =365 nlsf /employee =400 gsf /employee 800 1,200 650,000 2,000 1,500 2,801 2,500- 800,000 3,000 3,462 1,350M avg =812 glsf /employee max =541 glsf /employee 500 nlsf /employee avg =250 sf /employee avg =285 sf /employee avg =400 nlsf /employee 1.2M 800 gsf /employee avg =480 glsf /employee max =390 glsf /employee 1/6/88 Notes 1. 5 majors; 135 specialties 2. Full and part time employees 1. 4 majors, 200 independents 2. Full and part time employees 1. 4 majors, 100 specialties 1. Standard rule of thumb for all (full time and part time) employment 1. National average 2. No distinction in gsf vs. nlsf -- 3. Unspecified HUD source book 1. National average 2. No distinction in gsf vs. nlsf 1. 4 majors, 115 specialties 1. Includes full time and part time employees 1. Derived from Tables 5.3 -2 and 8.2 -12 • In discussions with the various sources, several variables were identified that influence the employment numbers that would be associated with the operation of a regional commercial center: 1. The distribution of major (anchor) stores relative to smaller specialty stores. 2. Economic conditions, both overall trends and seasonal fluctuations. 3. Hours of operation. 4. Consideration of full time v. part time employment. 5. Marketing and Personnel strategies used by the operators of the anchor stores. In summary although there seems to be some range in the employee data that have been assembled, it would appear that the figure of 500 square feet of regional retail space per employee is a reasonable estimate. Office Development Employment data on office uses reflect a more narrow range of expected employment, with estimates between 200 -250 square feet of office space per employee, with the former reflecting estimates from ITE and the latter, from the Towne Center DEIS. It is acknowledged, however, that there are instances in which office employment is "more dense." The figure of 250 square feet of office space per employee seems to be a reasonable estimate. Alternatives Employment Based on the multipliers and the square footage by use as defined for the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS, the alternatives would be characterized by the following employment: Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2,220 employees 6,680 employees 3,180 employees 1,440 employees Introduction In order to determine the fiscal impact of the proposed regional commercial center and its alternatives as defined in the EIS, an analysis was performed to calculate the revenues and expenditures to the City of Renton. This section of the Appendix identifies the formula, methodology, and assumptions used to calculate the impact. Methodology First, a target year was selected to portray the impacts. The year 1995 was chosen as the year to be analyzed; the year was selected as it was identified as the first year of buildout. Second, it was assumed that the capital costs for infrastructure improvements that would be required to support the project would occur prior to 1995 and also would be borne by the developer of the project. Consequently, it was determined that only non - capital dollar flows would be examined. Third, the City of Renton identified the revenue and expenditure items that would be of significance in assessing the fiscal impact. These items resulted in the development of a formula that was applied to calculate the net impact on the City of Renton. In simple terms the impact is based on the following: Net Fiscal Impact = (Revenues) - (Expenditures) More specifically, in this analysis the impact is calculated based on the following: Fiscal Impact = [(Property Tax) + (Sales Tax) + (Real Estate Excise Tax) + (Business License Fees) + (Utility Tax)] - [(Police Expenditures) + (Fire Protection Expenditures) + (Public Works Expenditures) + (General Government Expenditures)] The following discussion explains the derivation of the values for these nine identified items. Property Tax In order to determine property tax amounts for the year 1995, the King County Assessor's Office was contacted. Comparable properties were identified and discussed in order to derive a basis for determining the assessed values of the alternatives. King County assesses shopping centers based on a formula that calculates assessment values based on annual sales for anchor stores and based on the rents for smaller, specialty stores. The 1987 assessed value of Northgate and Southcenter and their assessments are as follows: Land Improvement Total Center Value Value Value Assessment Northgate $24.2M $43.8M $68.OM $912,600 Southcenter $23.9M $59.5M $83.5M $1,052,400 Assuming that the proposed Orillia Regional Center would be compara- ble to (an average of) these two centers, an assessment of $983,000 is assumed. Escalating the 1987 assessment by an assumed annual inflation rate of 4% results in a 1995 assessment of $1,345,000. Prorating this value to a 650,000 square foot center (Alternative 3) results in a 1995 assessment of $874,400. According to the Assessor's Office, office centers in the area have market values of approximately $100 -150 /building square foot (Bruin, 1988). Assuming a 1987 assessed value of $125 /developed leasable square foot and a (1987) assessment rate of $3.97216/$1000 of assessed value (City of Renton, 1987), a 1,500,000 square foot office center (Alternative 1). would be assessed $744,800. Escalating the 1987 assessment by an assumed annual inflation rate of 4% results in a 1995 assessment of $1,019,300. Assuming that the Alternative 2 assessment reflects the assessment characteristics of the regional commercial center (Proposed Action) and the office complex (Alternative 1) on a proportionate basis, it is determined that the 1995 assessment would be $790,900. Sales Tax The Sabey Corporation indicates that the expected sales of a regional center in 1987 would be $173 /leasable square foot, which if escalated to 1995 at an annual inflation rate of 4 %, would result in sales of $237 /leasable square foot. Based on discussions with neighboring jurisdictions, the City of Renton indicates that the taxable sales of office activities is negligible. The City sales tax rate for the past four years has been approximately 0.9 %. Assuming that in 1995 the City will require a slightly greater tax base in order to fund and maintain improvements and that a portion of that increase in revenues will be derived from sales tax, it is assumed that the 1995 sales tax rate will be 1 %. Applying these assumptions to the alternatives results in the following 1995 sales and sales tax generation: Alternative 1995 Sales Sales Tax Proposed Action $237,000,000 $2,370,000 Alternative 1 0 0 Alternative 2 $71,100,000 $710,000 Alternative 3 $154,000,000 $1,540,000 Real Estate Excise Tax Real Estate Excise Tax is paid with the transfer of property. Consequently, the tax will be paid only with sale of property and may or may not occur in any given year. In the City of Renton, the excise tax is 0.75 %. Assuming that the 1995 market value is identical to the 1995 assessed value would result in the following conditions: Alternative Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Market Value $104,000,000 $256,600,000 $128,700,000 $67,600,000 Excise Tax $780,000 $1,920,000 $965,000 $507,000 Business License The business license fee is based on the rate of $55 per each full time employee at the business. The employment data generated in the preceding section for the individual alternatives reflects the average number of employees. Assuming that the average number of employees corresponds to full time equivalent employees (FTE) and that the license rate of $55 /FTE will remain constant to 1995, these data result in the following business license fees: Alternative Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 License Fees $121,000 $368,500 $176,000 $77,000 Utility Tax The City of Renton utility tax is a 5% tax that is applied to the customer's purchases of electricity, natural gas, telephone and telegraph, water, sewer, storm drain, and solid waste services. In order to calculate the tax revenues that would accrue to the City, projected utility costs for each of the alternatives were calculated and the 5% tax rate applied (See Table E -2). Table E -2 UTILITY COSTS AND UTILITY TAXES ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Utility Electricity Gas Telecommunications Water + Sewer Solid Waste Storm Drain Proposed Action 1,165,000 0 1,000,000 192,454 227,500 12,479 UTILITY COSTS Tax Rate UTILITY TAX REVENUE 2,597,433 0.05 129,871.65 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 1,360,000 860,000 755,000 0 0 0 1,500,000 870,000 650,000 162,262 118,668 125,093 112,500 108,375 147,875 12,479 12,479 12,479 3,147,241 0.05 157,362.05 Note: Costs are expressed in 1995 dollars Source: See Text E -6 1,969,522 1,690,447 0.05 0.05 98,476.1 84,522.35 For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that there would be no natural gas consumption, that electricity use would capture energy requirements for the alternatives. Electricity consumption is described in the Utilities section of the Draft EIS. For the purpose of the analysis it is assumed that the average cost of electricity in 1995 will be $.05 /kwh and that there is no service, demand, or seasonal charges. Telecommunications, which include telephone, telegraph, and cable, are business - specific. Pacific Northwest Bell was not able to provide normative data on sales by commercial category. Consequently, for the purpose of this analysis, the simplifying assumption of $1 of telecom- munications sales per net leaseable square foot of space per year is used to derive gross sales. Water service charges assume .008 cents /cubic foot of water consumption. The derivation of water consumption figures is presented in the Utilities section of the Draft EIS. Sewer charges are assumed to be twice those of water. Solid waste generation rates are assumed to be comparable to nationwide normative values generated by the National Solid Waste Management Association. For office uses, the generation rate of .01 pound of solid waste per net leaseable square foot of use is anticipated; for shopping mall type uses, the figure of .025 pound of solid waste per net leaseable square foot is applied. It is assumed that solid waste will be generated at these rates effectively year round for the regional center alternatives and for 300 days per year for the office uses. Solid waste collection, transfer, and disposal costs in 1995 are assumed to be $50 /ton, which represent slightly less than a 25% increase over current costs. Table E -3 presents the logic in the calculation of solid waste utility costs. Storm drain utility costs are assumed to be based on the High Intensity Land Use rate of $23.11 /acre /month (as presented in the 1987 annual budget) for the 45 acre site. Revenue - Summary Figure E -1 illustrates a comparison of the expected revenues that would accrue to the City based on the assumptions and calucations presented above. It should be noted that the real estate excise tax, which is associated with time of sale and is not an annual cost, is omitted as a component of the annual revenue profile. Police Protection Expenditures Projected police expenditures were identified for comparable projects operating in 1987 by the City of Renton. Both the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 are determined to require four police person, operations of one police vehicle, and associated equipment. Alternative 1 is determined to require one police person, operations of "one- quarter" of one police vehicle, and associated equipment. Alternative 2 is determined to require one and one -half police person, operations of "one- third" of one police vehicle, and associated equipment. Expendi- E -7 m co Table E -3 Projected 1995 Solid Waste Utility Costs Collection Daily and Dumping Alternative Generation Rate (lbs /sf) Days /yr Annual Waste (tons) Fee Proposed Action 1,000,000 0.025 364 4,550 227,500 Alternative 1 1,500,000 0.01 300 2,250 112,500 Alternative 2 - Office 570,000 0.01 300 855 Alternative 2 - Retail 300,000 0.025 350 1,312.5 Alternative 2 - Total 870,000 2,167.5 108,375 Alternative 3 650,000 0.025 364 2,957.5 147,875 Source: See Text - tures by alternative were calculated for 1995 by assuming a 4% annual inflation rate. 1995 police expenditures are estimated as follows: Proposed Action and Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 $249,100 62,300 94,400 Fire Protection Expenditures Projected fire protection expenditures were identified by the City of Renton. The principal expenditure was identified as the Fire Depart- ment's inspection of various properties and was not determined by the City to vary among the alternatives. Again, expenditures were inflated to 1995 levels and are estimated at $17,800. Public Works The City of Renton identified the expenditures associated with the operations and maintenance of public works facilities, such as roadway maintenance, water system, sanitary sewer, and stormwater conveyance systems, in support of the alternatives. The City indicated that there would be a 1995 cost of $45,000 and that there would be no variation among the alternatives. Figure E -1 R E V E N U E S (in 1995 dollars) 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000_ REVENUES BY TYPE FOR ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 ALTERNATIVE Alternative 3 0 Property Tax ® Sales Tax - Operations ® Business License 0 Utility Tax E- 9 General Government The City of Renton identified the costs associated with the operation of the City's government facilities and activities in support of the Proposed Project and alternatives. The City determined that there would be 1995 municipal costs of $25,000 for each aternative. Summary - Expenditures Figure E -2 illustrates the relative expenditures by category for each of the alternatives. The figure illustrates that the_ police protection expenditure results in the greatest influence on overall expenditures. Impact Assessment - Conclusions Based on the above methodologies and assumptions, the fiscal impacts of the alternatives were calculated. The results of the calculations are presented in Table E -4. The revenues that would accrue to the City of Renton are expected to be greatest under the Proposed Action, followed by Alternative 1 (73 % of the revenues of the Proposed Action) and Alterna- tive 3 (65 %). Alternative 2 would result in the least revenue (58% of the Proposed Action). A comparison of expenditures reveals that of the four alternatives the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 would require the least in City - based expenditures. Alternative 2 would have approximately 58% of the City- incurred costs as the Proposed Action and Alternative 3; while Alternative 1 would have the least cost to the City - -less than half that of the Proposed Action and Alternative 3. Figure E -2 E X 200,000 _ P E N 150,000 100,000_ R 50,000 _ E S (in 1995 dollars) EXPENDITURES BY TYPE FOR ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 ALTERNATIVE Alternative 3 0 Police ® Fire ID Public Works ® General Government E -10 m J Item Table E -4 Revenues and Expenditures Associated with the Proposed Action and the Alternatives Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 REVENUES Property Tax 1,345,000 1,019,300 790,900 874,400 Sales Tax - Operations 2,370,000 0 710,000 1,540,000 Business License 121,000 368,500 176,000 77,000 Utility Tax 118,500 151,800 93,100 77,100 TOTAL - Revenues 3,954,500 1,539,500 1,770,000 2,568,500 EXPENDITURES Police Fire Public Works General Government TOTAL - Expenditures REVENUES - EXPENDITURES Source: See Text 249,100 17,800 45,000 25,000 336,900 62,300 17,800 45,000 25,000 150,100 3,617,600 1,389,400 94,400 17,800 45,000 25,000 182,200 249,100 17,800 45,000 25,000 336,900 1,587,800 2,231,600 Overall, the City would benefit by a positive cash -flow from any of the alternatives. As Table E -4 demonstrates, the Proposed Action would be expected to generate $3.6 million dollars; Alternative 1 would result in a net of $1.4 million; Alternative 3 would result in a net of $1.6 million and Alternative 2 a net of $2.2 million. Mantz, Sally, 1988. Manager, Sea -Tac Mall. Personal comunication, 1988. Michaels, Sam, 1988. Manager, Northgate. Personal comunication, 1988. ' E -13 Rand Corporation, 1976. Delivery of Urban Public Services Production, Cost and Demand Functions, and Determinants of Public Expenditures for Fire, Police, and Sanitation Services. Smith, Pete, 1988. Transportation Planner, King County Planning and Community Development Division. Personal comunication, 1988. Urban Land Institute, . Shopping Center Handbook. Appendix F EXCERPTS FROM CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE V. COMMERCIAL GOAL: TO PROMOTE ATTRACTIVE, CONVENIENT, VIABLE SYSTEMS OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES. A. COMMERCIAL AREAS OBJECTIVE: Sound commercial areas should be created and /or maintained and declining areas revitalized. POLICIES: 1. Commercial zoning should only be allowed to the extent of short term needs. 2. In a residential planned unit development, commercial facilities should be limited. 3. To improve access, planned clusters of commercial development should be encouraged, and commercial strip areas should be discouraged. 4. Commercial areas should be located and designed to minimize travel and congestion and to promote safety. 5. Sufficient access, circulation, walkways, and off - street p, eking and loading should be provided by commercial developments. 6. To minimize traffic congestion, commercial areas should not be located near facilities that require a high degree of safety and traffic control. 7. Commercial areas should be compatible with adjacent land uses. 8. Buffers should be placed between commercial and single family uses with higher density single family as an alternative to multiple family uses where either the scale of the commercial development or the geographical constraints in the vicinity of the commercial area represent opportunities to locate less intensive residential uses adjacent to the commercial areas. 9. A variety of goods and services should be available in each commercial area. 10. Various uses within a commercial area should be compatible with each other. 11. Joint parking facilities should be encouraged. 12. Individual stores in an area should follow a common design and landscape theme. 13. Adequate access for emergency and service equipment should be required. B. COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND SITES OBJECTIVE: Commercial structures and sites should be well- designed, constructed, and maintained. POLICIES: 1. Structures which minimize energy consumption should be encouraged. 2. Substandard structures should be rehabilitated or removed. F -1 3. Structures should be adequately set back and buffered from other uses. 4. Site plan design should provide for efficient and functional use of land. 5. Developments should be designed and maintained to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREAS OBJECTIVE: Neighborhood commercial areas should include only those convenience -type uses which serve the immediate neighborhood. POLICIES: 1. Each neighborhood commercial area should be located at the intersection of two arterials. 2. In order to maximize the convenience aspect, only one corner of an intersection should be developed for commercial uses. 3. Neighborhood commercial areas should be far enough apart so that there is no encroachment on another's service area. D. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AREAS OBJECTIVE: Community commercial areas should provide a broader variety of uses than neighborhood commercial areas, and be conveniently located to serve several neighborhoods. POLICIES: 1. Each community commercial area should be located at the intersection of two arterials. 2. Community commercial facilities should be concentrated as much as possible. 3. Community commercial areas should be located far enough apart so that there is no encroachment on another's service area. E. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT OBJECTIVE: The downtown business district should be preserved and enhanced to provide the broadest of personal services and retail sales opportunities. POLICIES: 1. Substandard structures should be rehabilitated or removed. 2. Individual businesses within an area should follow a common design and landscape theme. 3. A design advisory committee should be encouraged. 4. Pedestrian - oriented amenities should be encouraged. 5. Common parking facilities should be built. 6. Direct access from parking lots should be encouraged. 7. To preserve the downtown business district as a vital retail service area, streets within thiL district should be reserved for shopping traffic and through traffic should be diverted to alternate routes. F -2 (27) • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS The following descriptions define the land uses and intensities that are appropriate within areas designated in the Land Use Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Commercial An area intended for retail activities. shopping centers, office uses, personal and professional service activities. non - industrial wholesale, mixed commercial/residential uses, and similar compatible uses. The intensity and scale of commercial uses permitted in the Central Business District. adjacent to major arterials and near other non - residential uses should be greater than the scale of commercial activity permitted near more sensitive land uses. Manufacturin4 Park /Multiple Option An area intended for a broad range of choice in industrial, service commercial and office uses. The Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option designation is intended primarily for light industrial uses with certain compatible heavy industrial, commercial and office uses located in a park -like setting of high operational and environmental standards. However, in certain locations, a different mix of industrial, service and office uses is appropriate because of site characteristics such as access, natural features, and surrounding uses. The purpose of the Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option designation is to provide for tha broadest possible range of uses in areas designated and mapped simply as Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option. In areas with special site characteristics, a suffix may be added to further refine the types of allowable uses. These areas should be indicated on the Land Use Element Map and described in written policies. Development in all Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option areas should be characterized by adequate setbacks, landscaping, design standards, wildlife habitat and open space, and minimum impacts from noise, glare, traffic, air and water pollution, and safety hazards. Valley Plan (31) • AREA SPECIFIC POLICIES I. GREEN RIVER VALLEY POLICY PLAN A. AREA DESCRIPTION: The Valley Planning Area is a developing area of industrial, commercial, and office uses, similar in character to urbanized areas throughout the Green River Valley. The planning area (referred to as "the Valley ") is that portion of the Green River Valley which is a part of the City of Renton or tributary to Renton. The boundaries of this area are generally the Green River on the west, S.W. 43rd Street on the south, the base of Talbot Hill to the east, and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks on the north. B. GOALS: GENERAL AREA GOAL: The Valley Planning Area should be developed with a diversity of high quality industrial, commercial, and office uses. The Valley should be the principal growth area for these uses within the City of Renton. Development within the Valley should be compatible with the availability of services and transportation and with the environmental objectives of the City of Renton. LAND USE GOAL: To promote development of the Valley in a diversity of high quality industrial uses, together with commercial and office uses. ECOMONIC GOAL: To promote land development and commerce that will enhance a stable, diversified economic base for residents, employees, and businesses in the City of Renton. ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL: To ensure that development of the Valley is harmonious with the natural environmental setting, while minimizing pollution and other adverse environmental impacts. URBAN DESIGN GOAL: To promote a functional and aesthetic balance among industrial, commercial, office, recreation, and other uses in the Valley through appropriate design standards and a logical land use pattern. Valley Plan (32) TRANSPORTATION GOAL: To promote efficient transportation within the Valley and adequate access to and from the Valley Planning Area. URBAN SERVICES GOAL: To promote the adequate provision of utility services (including storm drainage control), community facilities, and recreational opportunities in the Valley. F- 6 Valley Plan (33) C. POLICIES• 1. ECONOMICS, Rationale: Because (1) a healthy local economy benefits all segments of the Renton community; (2) new industrial and commercial development creates jobs and enhances the tax base; (3) a diversified industrial and business environment protects against economic instability; (4) certain types of industry and business produce a more favorable balance of public revenues and costs; (5) substantial land area suitable for industrial and business growth currently exists in the Valley; and (6) safe and non - polluting industry provides a quality working environment and a positive image for the community; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • The City should encourage high quality development on vacant filled land in the Valley to enhance the City's tax base. • Urban activities that provide a quality working environment for employees should be encouraged. • A diversity of industrial, commercial and office uses should be encouraged to provide stability to the economy of the Valley and to municipal revenues and to provide a wide range of employment opportunities. • Activities with a favorable ratio of municipal revenues to costs should be encouraged. • Activities that minimize pollution, or otherwise protect public health, welfare, should be encouraged. • A major portion of future industrial and office growth in the City should be directed toward the Valley Planning Area. • Development that takes advantage of, and retains, natural features in -- including wetlands -- should be encouraged. safety and of Renton the Valley Valley Plan (34) 2. LAND DEVELOPMENT, Rationale: Because (1) the Valley contains large areas suitable for industrial, commercial and office uses; (2) over 500 acres of this land is currently filled and vacant; (3) each increment of additional landfill further reduces the natural flood storage potential of the Valley and raises flood levels; (4) scattered development is more difficult to serve with utilities and transportation; and (5) zoning designations that conflict with the Comprehensive Plan may create undesirable land use incompatibilities; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • Development should occur in a logical, systematic manner to minimize the occurrence of scattered blocks of vacant, filled land. • The City should encourage development of vacant lands currently filled and zoned for urban uses before allowing significant additional landfill in the Valley. • Land within the Valley should be zoned In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to promote orderly development. Valley Plan (35) 3. URBAN DESIGN Rationale: Because (1) good design of industrial and commercial buildings and sites makes urban development more functional and attractive, improves business and enhances the community's image; (2) site layout, building setbacks, access, building scale, landscaping, screening, and parking and loading arrangement are important elements of design; (3) establishing general standards for these elements and professional review of site plans helps ensure proper design; (4) certain elements of design -- such as building styles, exterior treatments and colors -- are best guided through cooperation with land developers; (5) the compatibility of adjacent uses is important in preventing conflicts of access, scale, aesthetics, and potential health concerns; (6) the current Manufacturing Park and Bulk Storage regulations set standards for designs and limit pollution- causing uses; (7) large scale planned developments, with adequate setbacks and design standards, successfully achieve the compatibility and design goals of the Valley; (8) on -site landscaping is an invaluable component of site design; and (9) natural landscaping materials and larger, concentrated landscaped areas provide valuable wildlife habitat; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • Development standards that ensure high quality development and encourage compatibility of adjacent uses should be established for industrial, commercial and office uses. • Building setbacks, landscaping requirements and other site plan criteria should be consistent throughout the Valley Planning Area. • The City should encourage the establishment of a design review process in the Valley. • Site plan review should be required for development in the Valley. • Manufacturing park and bulk storage standards should provide a guide for the types of non - polluting uses encouraged in the Valley. • Incompatible industrial and commercial uses should be discouraged. • Industrial park or business park development -- as opposed to single, unrelated uses -- should be encouraged. • Land uses in the Valley should be located so as to provide a harmonious mix. • Design standards or restrictive covenants executed between property owners and subsequent tenants or purchasers should be encouraged. • A recommended landscape theme and plant list, including native plants, should be established. Valley Plan (36) • Ample landscaping should be provided throughout a developed site, including along property lines, to provide a pleasant environment, minimize the impact of development, and enhance the visual experience from adjacent properties, including hillsides. • In addition, landscaped buffers should be established adjacent to public rights -of -way, between areas of incompatible land use, and along water channels and wildlife habitats. • Parking and loading areas should be adequately screened and landscaped. • The additional 2% natural landscaping required for developed sites in the Valley by the Soil Conservation Service Environmental Mitigation Agreement should not be dispersed throughout a site, but should be aggregated in one portion of the property. Where possible, the required 2% landscaping for adjacent properties should be contiguous. • The design, placement and size of signs should be compatible with high quality development. Additional advertising billboards shall be prohibited in the Valley. Valley Plan (37) 4. STORM DRAINAGE /FLOOD CONTROL Rationale: Because (1) there is a decided potential for serious interior flooding in the Valley when the Green River is at flood stage; (2) significant damage to buildings, property, roadways and utilities could result from flood events; (3) recent and future landfill in the Valley displaces existing natural flood storage and increases the potential for damage on other sites; (4) natural flood storage can be protected by excavation of a compensating volume of land or by preserving natural lowlands; (5) the Soil Conservation Service's East Side Watershed Project has been the accepted flood control plan for the Valley for more than 20 years; (6) the East Side Project remains the most feasible method of reaching a flood control solution in the Valley; (7) the high local financial costs of the East Side Project require an incremental approach to land acquisition and other local expenditures; (8) the East Side Project must be augmented by lateral drainage features and on -site flood proofing for a complete storm drainage system; (9) two large detention basins are an integral part of the East Side Project and of the required wildlife habitat mitigation; and (10) guaranteed future pumping releases from the East Side Project to the Green River are linked to improvements in river levees and operating agreements between local jurisdictions and federal agencies; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • The East Side Watershed Project should be completed in an incremental fashion as the most promising method of accomplishing large scale flood control in the Valley. • A management agreement involving all affected parties -- Renton, Kent, Tukwila, Auburn, King County, state and federal agencies -- and guaranteeing a firm outlet capacity for Springbrook Creek /Black River should be developed and adopted for the Green River. • Participation of the Soil Conservation Service in the P -1 Channel project should be maintained if feasible. • New development -- rezones, plats, site approvals, building permits -- adjacent to the P -1 Channel should be required to dedicate right -of -way for the project. • The alignment of the P -1 Channel, detention basins and wetlands mitigation as indicated on the S.C.S.. Land Rights Work Map, the P -1 and P -9 Channels Vicinity Map and the Environmental Mitigation Agreement should be established as the official location of the regional flood control improvements. Changes in such alignment should be made only for compelling engineering, environmental, or public financial reasons so that property owners and the public will be fully aware of project plans. If the East Side Watershed Project or other large scale flood control system is not completed in a timely manner, this plan and the existing zoning for the Valley should be reviewed to determine if further intensive development should be permitted. Valley Plan (38) • New development throughout the Valley should provide on -site and lateral storm drainage as part of the overall storm drainage plan for the Valley. • Development regulations and flood control solutions should involve properties throughout the Black River /Springbrook Creek basin -- including upland areas. • The Panther Creek Wetland should be publicly acquired as an essential element in the East Side Watershed Project. • The Environmental Mitigation Agreement -- involving the Soil Conservation Service and local sponsors (Renton, Kent. Tukwila. and King County) -- of the East Side Watershed Project should be implemented in phase with developing the P -1 Channel system. • The Flood Hazard Ordinance should be administered on the basis of requiring compensating storage -- either on -site or within the P -1 Channel alignment -- for new development or landfill below the base flood elevations of the revised Flood Hazard maps. Valley Plan (39) 5. TRANSPORTATION Rationale: Because (1) transportation access to the Valley is critical to business and to the public; (2) limited access has contributed to the lack of development in some Valley locations; (3) many of the traffic problems occur around the perimeter of the Valley Planning Area or on through - routes; (4) the most congested corridors -- I -405, S.W. 43 Street, Valley Freeway, West Valley Highway, Grady Way -- primarily carry traffic that traverses but does not stop in the Valley; (5) there is a lack of alternative routes from Renton and the Soos Creek Plateau westward across the Valley to Tukwila and I -5; (6) improvements to Grady Way, Monster Road, Oaksdale Avenue and Lind Avenue would improve access and offer some relief for through- traffic; (7) transportation safety is a major concern for railroad crossings, access points, bicycle traffic, and pedestrian movements; (8) the local transportation impacts of development can be mitigated by equitable distribution of the costs of improvements; and (9) as development intensifies in the Valley, opportunities for alternative transportation modes may become available; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • Improved access from SR -167 and West Valley Highway into and out of the Valley Planning Area should be provided. • An additional interchange to connect SR 167 with the mid - Valley area should be developed at approximately S.W. 27th Street. • The interchange of SR -167 at S.W. 43rd Street should be improved to accommodate more efficient access to the Valley Planning Area. • In conjunction with the State of Washington Transportation Department, an off -ramp should be provided from northbound I -405 to East Valley Road near SR -167. • Additional peak hour capacity should be developed for I -405 and SR -167 through a combination of transportation management measures and roadway improvements. • Grady Way should be improved as a major arterial, including an improved connection to Southcenter Parkway. • Throughout the Grady Way corridor, from Rainier Avenue to West Valley Road, the primary access for individual uses should be oriented toward secondary streets rather than directly onto Grady Way. • The Lind Avenue bridge over I -405 should be widened or replaced and should include pedestrian access. • Oaksdale Avenue should eventually become the major north -south arterial in the Valley, connecting with S.W. 7th Street and ultimately to SR -900 (Empire Way). Valley Plan (40) • The alignment and design of Monster Road should be improved to provide an efficient connection between the Valley and Empire Way. • The City should work with Kent, Tukwila and King County to reduce the impacts of through traffic on S.W. 43rd Street and to provide additional east -west routes through the Valley. • An additional cross - valley route -- connecting I -S with the Soos Creek Plateau -- should be created south of S.W. 43rd Street. • S.W. 27th Street should be connected to West Valley Highway at Strander Boulevard. • The number of access points on Individual sites should be minimized. • Along arterial routes, direct access to individual sites should occur only when alternate access via secondary streets is unavailable. • At -grade railroad crossings should be minimized and should be designed with safety as the primary consideration. • All parking, servicing, loading and unloading of vehicles should be only on -site. • A system of bicycle/pedestrian trails separate from the street system and a system of marked bicycle routes should be established. • Provision for pedestrians should be provided throughout the system of streets in the Valley. • New development should help finance off -site street and traffic control improvements in proportion to the additional traffic impacts created. • Alternatives to single- occupant vehicles should be encouraged -- especially in high employment areas of the Valley -- as development density increases. • Developers should be encouraged to develop HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) and transit usage incentives for large developments and for concentrations of high employment. Valley Plan (41) 6. UTILITIES Rationale: Because (1) adequate utilities -- such as water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electricity, natural gas -- are necessary for safe, functional urban development; (2) well planned utilities are cost - effective, efficient and easier to maintain; and (3) placing utilities underground contributes to the positive visual image of an industrial/commercial area; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • Development within the Valley should be served by adequate utilities. • New development should provide for utility extensions to service itself. • All utilities should be placed underground. • Sites and buildings should be designed to maximize energy conservation. • Utilities should be designed to accommodate the maximum level of development anticipated in the Valley. 7. OPEN SPACE /GREENBELT Rationale: Because (1) some areas of the Valley possess qualities that are unsuitable for most urban development such as poor soils, high water table and stream banks; (2) these areas perform vital functions for storm drainage control and open space, which can be protected by greenbelt designation; (3) other features of the Valley form linear corridors of relatively undeveloped open space; and (4) greenbelt; designation does not imply public access or ownership but does recognize and help conserve the public benefits of such open space; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • Flood control alignments, regional detention basins, major rights -of -way including major railroad corridors, and areas with severe development limitations -- such as natural drainage features and designated wetlands -- should be greenbelts in the Land Use Element. • The East Side Project channel alignments should be designated as greenbelts. • Panther Creek Wetland and the steep hillsides to the east should be designated as greenbelt. • Springbrook Creek, where it maintains an alignment separate from the P -1 Channel, should be designated a greenbelt. • Greenbelts should be utilized for open space, recreation, flood control, wildlife habitat and other low intensity uses. Valley Plan (42) 8. WETLAND/WILDLIFE HABITAT /FLOODPLAIN Rationale: Because (1) the undeveloped environment of the Vally is dominated by wetlands -- marshes, bogs, swamps; (2) these wetlands and other parts of the Green River floodplain provide essential habitat for numerous forms of wildlife -- especially birds and small mammals; (3) wetlands also are valuable as natural flood storage areas, as pollution filters, as open space, and as educational resources; (4) most of the wetlands and wildlife habitat of the Valley have been converted to urban development; (5) protection of some of the remaining wetland areas would provide mitigation for habitat loss; (6) the City currently owns a 20 acre wetland parcel for "wetland, wildlife habitat, open space or greenbelt purposes "; and (7) the wildlife habitat value of undeveloped areas may be enhanced by proper management and planning; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • Wherever feasible, unique natural features should be incorporated into developmental plans to preserve the character of the Valley. • Remaining wildlife habitat in the Valley should be preserved or its loss should be mitigated. • Areas that provide wildlife habitat, such as designated wetland greenbelts and stream corridors, should be large enough to provide suitable cover for wildlife and buffering from adjacent uses. • The City's 1981 Wetlands Study should be used as a basis for establishing the priority of wetlands for acquisition and/or protection. • As promptly as feasible, the Panther Creek Wetland should be acquired and enhanced for wildlife habitat as mitigation for the East Side Project and for the loss of other wetlands in the Valley. • A substantial portion of the Black River Riparian Forest should be preserved in its natural state as a unique remnant of the Valley flora. • • All City -owned wetlands and natural areas should be managed for wildlife habitat until such time as the City may decide that public benefit would be served by acquisition of other lands of equal or greater wetland value. • Whenever feasible, retention of natural wetlands should be pursued as an alternative to structural flood control measures. • The small hill west of Monster Road near the METRO Treatment Plant is a unique natural feature that should be preserved and integrated into site plans as an amenity when the surrounding area is developed. Valley Plan (43) 9. RESIDENTIAL USE Rationale: Because (1) residential uses are limited to small areas in the Valley; (2) services for residential neighborhoods -•- such as shopping, parks, public facilities -- are not readily available in the Valley; (3) there is a need for housing, especially seasonal housing, near Longacres Race Track; (4) there are a few homes remaining in the area between S.W. Grady Way and 1 -405, but these are isolated and, in some cases, deteriorating; and (5) this area is converting steadily to commercial, industrial and office uses so that a residential neighborhood is no longer viable; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • Limited residential opportunities tributary to Longacres should be permitted by conditional use. • Residential uses between S.W. Grady Way and 1-405 should be encouraged to convert to more intensive uses. 10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Rationale: Because (1) there are few community facilities located in the Valley at present; (2) increasing high value development and growing employment create the need for certain types of community facilities; (3) careful planning is necessary to assure that facilities are provided as they are needed; (4) the need for a fire station to serve future development in the Valley has been identified; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • The City should closely monitor fire protection needs in the Valley and provide for a new fire station when appropriate. • Community facilities should be provided in phase with the urban development of the Valley. • Plans for other community facilities -- post office, public safety, social and health services -- to serve residents and employees in the Valley should be coordinated with the responsible agencies. Valley Plan (44) 11. RECREATION Rationale: Because (1) recreational activities in the Valley are currently informal and there are few opportunities for active recreation; (2) the number of employees in the Valley -- and thus the need for recreation facilities -- is growing; (3) both employers and public agencies have responsibilities for meeting recreation needs; (4) effective planning will preserve future recreational opportunities; (5) the proposed East Side Watershed Project presents opportunities for future recreation use; (6) bicycle and pedestrian trails developed through the Valley can be linked with Fort Dent Park, the Interurban Trail, and the Rainier Bike Corridor; and (7) natural areas in the Valley offer significant opportunities for passive recreation and environmental education; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • Provision of recreational opportunities should be an integral part of development in the Valley. • Recreational opportunities in the Valley that serve both employees and the community should be encouraged. • Firms with large numbers of employees should develop outdoor recreation facilities. • Wherever feasible, greenbelt/openspace /wildlife habitats should be managed to include recreational opportunities as a secondary objective. • The rights -of -way for flood control and drainage features should be designed to permit future recreational use. • A pedestrian/bicycle path system separate from the street system and a system of bicycle routes should be incorporated in the developmental plan for the Valley and should connect with other trails or recreation destinations. • An active park site should be acquired in the Valley and developed as recreational needs warrant. • Acquisition and development of the Interurban Trail from S.W. 43rd Street to Fort Dent Park should be pursued in conjunction with King County and other local jurisdictions. Valley Plan (45) 12. GOVERNMENT Rationale: Because (1) many of the problems facing existing and future development in the Valley extend beyond the limits of Renton's jurisdiction; (2) cooperation between government agencies increases the chances of reaching solutions and helps avoid conflicts; (3) issues requiring governmental cooperation in the Valley include flood control, management of Green River flows, and transportation; (4) a sizeable area located east of the railroad tracks is within the corporate limits of the City of Tukwila but is closely related to the Renton portion of the Valley; and (5) potential conflicts of land use regulations, utilities and other public services could occur in this area; therefore, the following policies should be pursued. Policies: • The City should work with Tukwila to regulate development in lands east of the railroad tracks and to ensure compatibility with Renton's land use goals. • The City should act in concert with the Soil Conservation Service, Kent, Tukwila and King County to implement the East Side Watershed Project. • The City should cooperate with the other Valley cities and King County to reach a Green River Management Agreement. • The City should encourage federal, state, county and local cooperation to address through - traffic problems in the Valley. Valley Plan (46) 13. LAND USE The following policies describe the various land use designations within the Valley Plan area. The descriptions define the type and intensity of land uses appropriate for each designated area. In addition, the land use descriptions are intended for application throughout the entire City of Renton. Moreover, the definitions provide guidance for the development and modification of zoning regulations that implement the land use designations. Each land use description is followed by specific locational policies that explain where that land use designation is recommended for the Valley Plan area. In some instances, policies that further delineate the types of appropriate uses are also included. Commercial • An area intended for retail activities, shopping centers. office uses, personal and professional service activities, non - industrial wholesale, mixed commerciallresidential uses, and similar compatible uses. The intensity and scale of commercial uses permitted in the Central Business District, adjacent to major arterials and near other non - residential uses, should be greater than the scale of commercial activity permitted near more sensitive land uses. Locational Policies • Commercial uses are designated in four locations in the Valley. At the extreme southeast corner of the Valley -- north of S.W. 43rd Street and west of SR 167 -- Commercial is designated. This commercial area should extend west to Lind Avenue S.W. and northeasterly to include all quadrants of the intersection of S.W. 41st Street and East Valley Road. This area should take advantage of the good exposure and access to provide a range of office, business, service and retail uses. • The second Commercial location is the west side of West Valley Highway from just south of Strander Boulevard to I -405 and the east side up to the Longacres access road. This area should be excellent for office and retail uses, especially as they complement Longacres Racetrack. • The area just north of I -405 and adjacent to West Valley Highway is also Commercial. This location has high visibility and good access. • Longacres Racetrack and the area across S.W. 16th Street from Longacres is designated Commercial. The current zoning of the racetrack complex is B -1 (Business Use) and the uses occurring in this area are primarily commercial in nature. Valley Plan (47) Light Industry • An area intended for small and medium scale industrial activities such as technological research, fabrication and processing of products, assembly or repair of products and the handling, shipment and storage of goods. Light industrial uses generally do not include primary preparation of products from raw materials. Small to medium scale office and business uses are also appropriate. Locational Policies • Light Industry is the land use designation for two areas in the Valley. These are (1) a crescent-shaped area between the METRO Treatment Plan and I -405 and (2) the east side of West Valley Highway just south of I -405. These areas already are generally developed in light industrial uses, which is the principal rationale for their. designation. Heavy industrial and extensive retail uses are not appropriate. Heavy Industry • An area intended for industrial uses such as manufacturing, assembly and processing of products, bulk handling of goods, large amounts of storage or warehousing, heavy trucking, or other industrial activities that, because of noise, odors, air pollution, safty considerations or size, are not compatible with residential, commercial or light industrial uses. However, all permissible heavy industrial uses must meet minimum community standards for environmental compatibility. Locational Policies • The only area of the Valley designated specifically for Heavy Industry is located between the Green River and the railroad tracks within the City of Tukwila. The character of existing development in this area is primarily heavy industrial. Valley Plan (48) Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option • An area intended for a broad range of choice in industrial, service commercial and office uses. The Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option designation is intended primarily for light industrial uses with certain compatible heavy industrial, commercial and office uses located in a park -like setting of high operational and environmental standards. However, in certain locations, a different mix of industrial, service and office uses is appropriate because of site characteristics such as access, natural features, and surrounding uses. The purpose of the Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option designation is to provide for the broadest possible range of uses in areas designated and mapped simply as Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option. In areas with special site characteristics, a suffix may be added to further refine the types of allowable uses. These areas should be indicated on the Land Use Element Map and described in written policies. Development in all Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option areas should be characterized by adequate setbacks, landscaping, design standards, wildlife habitat and open space, and minimum impacts from noise, glare, traffic, air and water pollution, and safety hazards. Locational Policies • The following policies further refine the definition of Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option for specific geographical areas. • The area west of Powell Avenue S.W. and north of S.W. 7th Street between the P -1 channel and the Burlington Northern railroad and generally surrounding the P -1 forebay storage pond should be specifically designated as Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option - Office. The implementation of office and other similar service and light industrial activities in low rise building structures should be encouraged. These small to medium scale office and business park uses should be harmonious with their setting and should take advantage of the amenities offered by the forebay pond and Black River Forest. Large scale warehousing and industrial uses should be discouraged. The triangular area generally located between S.W. 10th Street and I -405, from the P -1 Channel to Rainier Avenue (to Lind Avenue north of Grady Way) is designated Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option - Office/Light Industry emphasizing the implementation of office and service uses, with compatible light industrial uses of a similar scale. This geographical area is not recommended for retail uses because of the potential for significant impacts on the traffic circulation system -- especially Grady Way -- as a result of much higher rates of traffic generation for retail uses. Throughout the Grady Way corridor, the primary access for individual uses should be oriented toward secondary streets rather than directly onto Grady Way. • The area between S.W. 16th Street and S.W. 23rd Street and from SR -167 to the P -1 channel should be designated Manufacturing Park /Multiple Option - Office. The area is intended for high quality office and office park uses with significant setbacks and perimeter landscaping. Other industrial or service uses may be allowed if compatible in design and bulk standards to office /office park uses. Design standards for compatibility should be established within the site plan review regulations. Valley Plan (49) • The area south of Longacres Race Track and generally adjacent to the Burlington Northern and Union Pacific rights -of -way is intended to be Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option - Industry. This designation encourages utilization of the rail transportation system through the implementation of light and heavy industrial uses requiring rail access. • The,S.W. 43rd Street frontages between Lind Avenue S.W. and the railroad tracks are designated Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option - Office. Implementation of office and similar service uses is recommended to take advantage of the high visibility of this site and its good access. • The remaining areas designated simply for Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option are intended to provide the opportunity to choose among a wide range of light industrial and compatible heavy industrial, commercial and office uses. Public /Quasi- Public • An area intended for publicly owned and certain privately owned uses, including utilities, hospitals, other health care facilities, churches, clubs, schools, non - profit institutions, airports and government buildings. Major public faciities typically attract an array of subordinate or complementary uses which may be accommodated under appropriate special conditions. Locational Policies • Two areas of the Valley are designated Public /Quasi- Public. These are METRO's Renton Treatment Plant and a small site east of Lind Avenue S.W. owned by the City of Renton. The latter site is proposed for a future fire station or other public use. If this site is not developed for public uses, the land use designation should revert to that of the surrounding area -- Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option - Office. F -23 Valley Plan (50) Recreation • An area intended for active or passive recreation activity or other leisure time pursuits. Locational Policies • Ft. Dent Regional Park, operated by King County, is designated for Recreation uses. Greenbelt, • An area intended for open space, recreation, very low density residential uses (generally at a density of less than one unit per gross acre), agriculture or other compatible low intensity use. Greenbelt areas are characterized by severe topographic, ground water, slope instability, soil or other physical limitations that make the areas unsuitable for intensive development. Provisions for public enjoyment of greenbelt areas are encouraged: however, greenbelt designations do not imply the right of public access. Locational Policies • All stream corridors and major flood control rights -of -way and drainage projects planned for the Valley are designated Greenbelt. This includes the P -1 and P -9 channels, the forebay detention basin, Springbrook Creek south of the P -9 channel, and the Panther Creek wetland. These areas provide visual breaks between land uses and will offer opportunities for recreational trails. The City of Renton's 20 acre wetland and most of the unfilled land surrounding it are designated greenbelt because they are floodways with substantial flood storage potential and provide wildlife habitat. A portion of the Black River Forest just north of the forebay detention basin is designated Greenbelt. South of I -405, both the area between the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad lines and the Puget Sound right -of -way south of about Strander Boulevard, are designated Greenbelt because they provide linear breaks between land uses and development potential is limited. However, restriction of rail transportation uses in this area is not intended. 4 -730 4 -730 4 -730: MANUFACTURING PARK (M -P) DISTRICT: (A) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the M-P Zone is to provide for a wide variety of industrial, transportation, service and office activities which meet high operational, development and environmental standards. Compatible personal service and retail uses which are supportive of industrial areas are also permitted. Standards for scale, buffers, outdoor activities and external impacts are set forth to ensure high quality air, water, light, and sound environments, adequate traffic circulation, and compatible land uses. The M-P Zone is intended to implement the manufacturing park /multiple option, manufacturing park /multiple option - office /light industry, and manufacturing park /multiple option - industry designations of the Comprehensive Plan. The principal zoning category for areas so designated on the Comprehensive Plan should be M-P. (B) Uses: In the Manufacturing Park Zone (M -P), the following and similar uses are permitted. The Building and Zoning Department may determine that any other use is similar in general character to the following specific uses and is in keeping with the intent of this Zone. Upon such administrative determination, the subject use shall become a principal, accessory or conditional use, whichever is appropriate. Unless indicated by the text, definitions of the uses listed in this Zone are consistent with the descriptions in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 1. Principal Uses: In the M -P Zone, the following principal uses are permitted: a. Manufacturing, processing, assembling and product servicing of: (1) Articles, products or merchandise from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials; (2) Articles, products or merchandise from previously prepared ferrous or alloyed metals; (3) Food and kindred products. b. Transportation, communication and utility services: Warehousing and storage, express delivery and hauling activities with limited cargo handling at a central terminal, utility distribution activities and support facilities, and communication services. c. Services: (1) All manner of business, professional, research and development. health, legal, educational, social, cultural and other services; (2) Personal, recreational, and repair services, motion picture theaters, and similar recreational and entertainment facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 4- 730(C)2; (3) Day care facilities. d. Offices: All manner of administrative, professional, medical, financial and business offices. F -25 686 686 4-730 4-730 B,1) e. Wholesale trade. f. Retail trade subject to the provisions of Section 4— 730(C)2. g. Recycling collection centers, provided that they are located outside of any required setback or landscaping area. (Ord. 3936, 9- 16 -85) h. Hobby Kennels: A maximum of eight (8) adult dogs or cats may be permitted after satisfaction of the requirements in. Section 4- 749(C)1,a. (Ord. 3955, 11 -4 -85) 2. Accessory Uses: In the M-P Zone the following uses are allowed where subordinate and incidental to a permitted use: a. Detached buildings or structures which are ordinarily associated with a permitted use. b. Outside storage of materials, products or containers subject to the limitations and screening provisions of Section 4- 730(C)7. c. A security building of less than one hundred (100) square feet located within a required yard but outside of required landscaped areas. d. One residence per establishment for security or maintenance personnel and family, provided that mobile homes and travel trailers are not permitted. e. Retail sales incidental to a permitted use. f. Repair services ordinarily associated with a permitted use. g. Drive -up "will call" windows. (Ord. 3463, 8- 11 -80) h. Storage of petroleum or natural gas or any of their by- products, provided that the total storage capacity is Tess than fifty thousand (50,000) gallons or other applicable unit of measure, and that storage.of such products is placed underground. (Ord. 3984, 4- 14-86) i. Recycling collection stations, provided that they are located outside of any required setback or landscaping area. 3. Conditional Uses: In the M-P Zone the following uses may be allowed by conditional use permit as provided in Section 4-748 of the Zoning Code. a. Gasoline service stations, provided that all activities except fuel sales are conducted entirely within an enclosed building. b. Truck terminals and associated warehousing facilities. c. Outdoor storage exceeding twenty feet (20') in height. d. Outdoor aboveground storage of up to ten thousand (10,000) gallons of the accessory storage of petroleum or natural gas or any of their by- products permitted in Section 4- 730(B)2,h above. E -26 4 -730 4 -730 B,3) e. Any permitted use whose activities, including manufacturing and storage, are predominantly conducted out -of -doors rather than completely enclosed within a building. f. Additional uses as identified in Section 4-748(D)1. 4. Prohibited Uses: In the M -P Zone the following uses are prohibited: a. Residential uses except for a security or maintenance personnel residence as provided in Section 4- 730(B)2,d. b. Automobile, motorcycle, truck, boat, mobile home, trailer, and recreational vehicle sales and rental establishments. c. Automobile, motorcycle, truck, boat, mobile home, trailer, and recreational vehicle repair, service and storage activities, except gasoline service stations or as incidental to a permitted use. d. Refining, manufacture or bulk storage of petroleum, or any of its by- products. e. Salvage, wrecking and disposal activities conducted out -of- doors. f. All other uses not included in Sections 4- 730(B)1 through 4- 730(B)3. (C) Development Standards: In the M-P Zone the following development standards shall apply, except as otherwise provided in Section 4 -730. 1. Site Plan Approval: Site plan approval shall be required for all developments within the M-P Zone. A building site plan shall be filed and approved in accordance with the City Code prior to issuance of any building permits. Each building or other development permit issued shall be in conformance with the approved site plan. 2. Standards for Retail and Selected Service Uses: For those service and retail uses identified in Sections 4- 730(B)1,c(2) and 4- 730(B)1,f, the following standards shall apply: a. The design of structures, including signs, shall be generally consistent in character with surrounding uses. No drive -up windows shall be permitted. b. No exterior display of merchandise designed to be viewed from the public right of way shall be permitted. c. In order to avoid the negative impacts of strip commercial development: (Ord. 3463, 8- 11 -80) (1) Retail or service uses shall be developed as part of larger, planned commercial, office or industrial complexes having common architectural or landscaping themes. A retail or service use shall not stand alone, unless such use has a gross floor area greater than twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet. Any stand alone retail or service use, smaller than twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet, in existence prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be permitted to expand, subject to all other provisions of City Code. (Ord. 3984, 4- 14 -86) F- 27 287 4 -730 C,2,c) 287 4— 730 (2) Direct arterial access to individual uses shall occur only when alternative access to local or collector streets or consolidated access with adjacent uses is not feasible. (3) Roof signs shall be prohibited. (Ord. 3463, 8- 11 -80) 3. Lot Area:. The minimum lot area permitted in the M -P Zone shall be thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet except for Tots existing as of December 1, 1986 which are smaller than thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet or Tess than three hundred feet (300') in depth as measured perpendicular to an adjacent street. For purposes of this Ordinance, such pre- existing Tots with Tess than the minimum area are known as "small lot M-P ". Certain small lot M-P setbacks and landscaping provisions may apply. See Sections 4- 730(C)4(a) and (b) and 4- 730(C)6(a). When properties which satisfy the criteria for small lot M-P are contiguous and held in the same ownership, then those Tots must be developed as a single development to the greatest extent possible. Before taking advantage of the small lot M-P provisions, a property owner must exhaust all available administrative or legal processes to aggregate the small lot M -P parcels to the minimum lot size of thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet, if possible. For example, if parcels of property within the same ownership are separated by an alley or street, the property owner must first apply for an alley or street vacation in an attempt to aggregate the parcels. In no event will a piece of property be subdivided to create lots to qualify for the small lot M-P criteria. The public interest is served by taking all steps necessary and legally permissible to encourage the further aggregation of Tots that qualify as small lot M-P lots such that the Tots qualify for the regular minimum M-P zoning areas of thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet. 4. Setbacks: a. Streets: All buildings or structures shall be located a minimum of sixty feet (60') from any street or highway property line, except from limited access highways where there shall be a minimum twenty foot (20') setback. However, when any portion of a lot is shallow (three hundred feet (300') or less in depth measured perpendicular to an adjacent street), the above setback standard shall not apply. Within such shallow portions of a lot, the setback from the street shall vary, so that at each point along the street, the required setback shall be twenty percent (20 %) of the lot dimension measured perpendicular to the street at that point, provided that the minimum setback is at least twenty feet (20') adjacent to arterial streets and ten feet (10') adjacent to all other streets. b. Other Yards: All buildings or structures shall be located a minimum of twenty feet (20') from all other property lines, including limited access highways. However, for pre - existing platted lots smaller than the minimum lot area in the M-P Zone, no setbacks are required from such other property lines, provided that the total coverage shall not exceed sixty five percent (65 %) of the lot area on these small lots. (Ord. 4035, 12- 22 -86) c. Railroad Spur Track: The required setbacks shall not apply along the portion of a building or structure contiguous to a railroad spur track. F -28 4 -730 4 -730 C,4) 287 d. Adjacent to Residential Lots: Whenever a proposed use in the M -P Zone shares a common property line with a lot designated residential on both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, the minimum setback contiguous to the common property line shall be fifty feet (50'). Whenever an adjacent lot contains a residential use and either the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation or both is something other than residential, then the appropriate setback and landscaping adjacent to the residential lot shall be determined by site plan approval. A site plan decision to require more than the minimum setback and landscaping shall consider the long term viability of the residential use, the presence of other residential uses in the surrounding area, and such other indications of stability as owner - occupancy and housing condition. e. Use of Setback Areas: All required setback areas shall be unoccupied and unobstructed except for off- street parking and loading, driveways, entrance roads, a gatehouse or guardhouse, water pits, lawn sprinklers, walkways, landscaping, ordinary and necessary utility service facilities, utility poles, lighting fixtures, identifying and direction signs, underground installations accessory to any permitted use, and railroads. f. Flexible Setbacks: With site plan approval and subject to applicable Building and Fire Codes, one of the side setbacks (not adjacent to a public street or residential use, as defined in Section 4- 730(C)4,d above) may be reduced or eliminated if the total of both side setbacks is at least forty feet (40'); and the rear setback not adjacent to a public street may be reduced or eliminated if the front setback is increased accordingly. The site plan decision shall be based on a finding that, with reduced setbacks, the architectural design, building orientation, circulation, noise and glare of the proposed project will be compatible with adjacent uses. 5. Height: a: In the M-P Zone, no height limit is established, provided that all required setback areas on the periphery of the lot shall be increased one additional foot in building height above forty five feet (45'). b. Gate houses or guardhouses shall not exceed twelve feet (12') in height. 6. Landscaping: (Ord. 3463, 8- 11 -80) a. Setback Areas: A landscaped strip a minimum of twenty feet (20') in width or one -half (Y2) the required setback, whichever is less, shall be provided adjacent to all street or highway right -of -way lines, except limited access highways; and a landscaped strip a minimum of ten feet (10') in width or one - half ('h) the required setback, whichever is less, shall be provided adjacent to interior side lot lines within the required front setback. (Ord. 4035, 12- 22 -86) b. Adjacent to Residential Lots: Whenever a proposed use in the M -P Zone shares a common property line with a lot that is designated residential F -29 4 -730 4— 730 C,6,b) on both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, a landscaped strip a minimum of ten feet (10') in width consisting of evergreen shrubs or trees a minimum of five feet (5') in height shall be provided adjacent to the common property line and shall be planted prior to occupancy of any portion of the site. c. All areas of a site not covered by buildings, structures, or paved surfaces shall be landscaped. Required landscape areas shall not be used for off - street parking and loading. Areas of a site set aside for future development may be hydroseeded. d. Flexible Landscaping Areas: With site plan approval, the perimeter landscaping strips required by Section 4- 730(C)6,a above may be reduced in width up to fifty percent (50%) if the equivalent square footage of landscaping is provided elsewhere within the site. Site plan approval shall be based on a finding that the alternative landscaping arrangement provides buffering and site amenities equal to or better than that which would be achieved by strict application of the Code. The relocated landscaping shall not be located within the rear setback of the site. 7. Outside Storage: a. Outside storage or display of materials, products and containers is permitted within the buildable area of a site, provided that the storage area is screened from all adjacent property lines by an existing structure, a wall or view - obscuring fence at (east six feet (6') but not more than ten feet (10') in height, or as required by the Bulk Storage Ordinance, Section 4 -734. b. Whenever outside storage exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the buildable area of a site, storage shall be considered the principal use of the site and shall be subject to the .conditional use requirements of Section 4- 730(B)3,e. 8. Refuse: No refuse, trash, rubbish or other waste material shall be dumped, placed or allowed to remain outside a permanent building, except in nonflammable, covered or enclosed containers, which shall be screened by fence or landscaping. No refuse shall be stacked higher than the screening fence or landscaping. (See following page for continuation of Section 4- 730(C)) F -30 287 4 -730 C) 9. Parking and Loading: a. See Chapter 22, Title IV of the City Code. 4 -730 b. All uses requiring deliveries or shipments shall provide a minimum of one off - street loading space and one additional loading space for each seventy thousand (70,000) square feet of gross floor area over six thousand (6,000) square feet. c. The minimum area for each off - street loading space, excluding area for maneuvering, shall be two hundred fifty (250) square feet. d. At no time shall any part of a vehicle be allowed to extend into a public right of way while the vehicle is being loaded or unloaded. All loading and unloading maneuvers shall be conducted on private property. e. Off- street loading spaces shall not interfere with the use of required off - street parking areas. 10. Environmental Performance Standards: The following minimum standards shall be met by all activities within the M -P Zone. For all activities which may produce objectionable or otherwise prohibited conditions, the property owner or lessee shall furnish design specifications or other scientific evidence of compliance with these standards. a. Noise: See Title VIII, Chapter 11, Noise Level Regulations. b. Smoke: (11 Visible grey smoke (or dust, dirt, fly ash or airborne solids) shall not be emitted from any source at a density or opacity greater than twenty percent (2096) for more than three (3) minutes in any hour, as per Regulation 1 of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. (2) The provisions applicable to visible grey smoke shall also apply to visible smoke of a different color but with an equivalent apparent opacity. c. Odorous Gases and Matter: No emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site. d. Toxic Gases and Matter: No emissions of toxic gases or matter shall be permitted in quantities damaging to health, animals, vegetation, or property or which cause any excessive soiling beyond exterior property lines of the lot or site. e. Vibration: No vibration shall be permitted to exceed 0.003 of one inch (1 ") displacement or 0.03 (g) peak acceleration, whichever is greater, as measured at any point outside the property lines of the lot or site. This shall apply in the frequency range of zero to five thousand (0 - 5,000) cycles per second. Shock absorbers or similar mounting shall be allowed to permit compliance with this specification. F -31 287 4 -730 4 -732 C,10) f. Glare and Heat: No glare and heat from any source shall be permitted to be unreasonably objectionable beyond the exterior property lines of a lot or site. 11. Signs: See Chapter 19, Title IV of the City Code. 12. Bulk Storage: See Section 4 -734 of the City Code. 13. Excavation, Grade and Fill: See Chapter 23, Title IV of the City Code. (Ord. 3936, 9- 16 -85) 4 -731: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (A) Powers and Duties: The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear applications for variances pursuant to Section 4- 722(G). (B) Board of Adjustment shall Announce Findings and Decisions: Not more than thirty (30) days after the termination of the proceedings of the public hearing on any variance, the Board of Adjustment shall announce its findings and • decision. If a variance is granted, the record shall show such conditions and limitations in writing as the Board of Adjustment may impose. (C) Notice of Decision of Board of Adjustment: Following the rendering of a decision on a variance application, a copy of the written order by the Board of Adjustment shall be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application and filed with the Board of Adjustment and to any other person who requests a copy thereof. (D) Effective Date of Decision; Appeal to Court: The action of the Board of Adjustment shall be final and conclusive, unless within ten (10) days• from the date of the action the original applicant or an adverse party applies to King County Superior Court for a writ of review. (Ord. 3463, 8- 11 -80) (E) Record of Decision: Whenever a variance is approved by the Board .of Adjustment, the Building Department shall forthwith make an appropriate record and shall inform the administrative department having jurisdiction over the matter. (Ord. 3463, 8- 11 -80; amd. Ord. 3592, 12- 14-81) 4 -732: MINING, EXCAVATION AND GRADING: (A) Special Permit Required: The Hearing Examiner may grant a special permit, after a public hearing thereon in any zone, to allow the drilling, quarrying, mining or depositing of minerals or materials, including but not limited to petroleum, coal, sand, gravel, rock, clay, peat and topsoil. A special permit shall be 'required on each site of such operation. (B) Standards: To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that the proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner shall use the standards established in that certain "Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance" being Ordinance No. 2820,' which said Ordinance is hereby incorporated, by reference, as if fully set forth. (Ord. 2821, 1- 14-74; amd. Ord. 3101, 1- 17 -77, eff. 1 -1 -77) 1. See Title 4, Chapter 23. F -32 287 4 -710 4 -711 0,4) (b) Parking /Circulation: Parking and circulation along the common lot line with a residential lot designated as such on both of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map shall be allowed only if ten feet (10') of signt- obscuring landscaping and a six foot (6') solid masonry fence are used along the common boundary. (c) Parking Requirements: See Chapter 22, Title IV of the City Code. 5. Signs: See Chapter 19, Title IV of the City Code. 6. Noise: Truck traffic and other noise normally associated with an operation shall be limited to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) P.M. unless the Hearing Examiner shall find that due to the specific circumstances of the particular application, other hours of operation should be established in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 3722, 4- 25 -83) 4 -711: B -1 BUSINESS DISTRICT: (A) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Business District Zone (B -1) is to provide for retail sales of products of every type and description, a wide variety of personal and professional services to clients and /or customers at the business location, and all manner of recreation or entertainment uses. The B -1 Business District provides for conditional approval, after public hearing, of retail or entertainment uses involving storage and recreation outside of an enclosed structure. Prohibited from the B -1 Business District are uses which involve the bulk storage of products, or the exterior storage of products in a manner which would be construed as bulk storage except that the minimum area requirements . are not exceeded, manufacturing uses or activities as a principal use. (B) Uses: In the Business District Zone (B -1, the following and similar uses are permitted. The Building and Zoning Department may determine that any other use is similar in general character to the following specific uses and is in keeping with the intent of this zone. Upon such administrative determination the subject use shall become a principal, accessory or conditional use whichever is appropriate. (1) Principal Uses: a. Retail Sales: 1. Apparel . and accessories. 2. Automotive and marine accessories. 3. Auto, boat and motorcycle sales. F -33 186 4 -711 4 -711 B,1,a) 4. Department and variety stores. 5. Dry goods. 6. Eating and drinking establishments. 7. Furniture and home furnishings. 8. Garden supplies: Small trees, shrubs, flowers and Tight supplies and tools within an enclosed building. 9. Grocery stores. b. Offices: 1. All types of business offices. 2. Personal offices such as real estate, insurance and architects. 3. Professional offices such as lawyers, doctors and dentists. c. Services: 1. Auto repair. 2. Boarding and lodging houses. 3. Bus terminals, taxi headquarters, not including exterior parking of commercial vehicles. 4. Business services: Duplicating and blueprinting, steno and employment. 5. Car washes. 6. Churches. 7. Commercial day care. 8. Funeral homes. 9. Governmental services and facilities, excluding utility facilities. 10. Hotels and motels. 11. Indoor public assembly: Motion picture theaters and theatrical production theaters, sports arenas, auditoriums and exhibition halls (except school facilities). 12. Libraries, museums, art galleries. 4 -711 4 -711 B,1,c) 6A5 13. Parking Tots and garages. 14. Parks and open space. 15. Personal services such as barber shop, beauty parlor. 16. Pet shop and grooming. 17. Professional and business schools. 18. Rental services not involving exterior storage. 19. Repair service facilities without outside storage: watch, TV, elec- trical, upholstery. 20. Veterinary offices. (Ord. 3750, 9- 26 -83) 21. Recycling collection centers. (Ord. 3905, 4- 22 -85) d. Residential: Residential dwelling units when located in a mixed use building of commercial and residential uses. No residential uses are allowed on the first floor. e. Hobby kennel (See Section 4- 704(B)1,e(31). (Ord. 3927, 7- 15 -85) (2) Accessory Uses: In the Business District (B -1), the following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted use and shall not exceed thirty three percent (33 %) of the gross floor area: a. Apparel, fabric and leather goods fabrication. b. Food preparation. c. Handcrafting products. d. Storage of products in conjunction with retail sales. (Ord. 3750, 9- 26 -83) e. Recycling collection stations, provided the structure is not located within any required setback and /or landscaped area. (Ord. 3905, 4- 22 -85) (3) Conditional Uses: In the Business District (B -1), the following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed by conditional use permit as provided in Sec- tion 4 -748. a. Aircraft transportation: heliports. b. Communications broadcast and relay towers. c. Convalescent and nursing homes. d. Gasoline service stations. e. Group hornes. f. Heights exceeding ninety five feet (95'). See Section 4— 711 (E), special conditional use requirements. F -3 5 4 -711 4 -711 B,3) g. Horticultural nurseries: Trees, shrubs, ground cover, flowers and related supplies. h. Hospitals. i. Outdoor recreation or entertainment uses. j. Park'n Ride lots. k. Private utilities. I. Recycling centers and drop or collection centers. m. Rental service facilities with outside storage. n. Self service storage facilities contained entirely within one building. o. Special schools: Technical and industrial processes. C. Prohibited Uses: In the Business District (B -1) Zone, the following uses are prohibited: (1) Bulk storage of products, or the exterior storage of products in a manner which would be construed as bulk storage except for the fact they do not exceed the minimum area requirements of Section 4 -734. (2) Manufacturing activities. (3) Travel trailers or recreational vehicles for habitation.. (4) All other uses. D. Development Standards: In the Business District (B -1) the following development standards shall apply, except as otherwise provided in this Section: (1) Setbacks: Setbacks in the B -1 zone shall be required as follows except for the downtown area defined in Section 4- 715(a): a. Front Yard: A minimum of ten feet (10'). 384 b. Street Setback: Maximum Building Height Less than 40 feet 40 feet - 80 feet Over 80 feet F -36 Setback 10 feet 20 feet 30 feet 4-711 4-711 D,1) c. Rear and Side Yards: None shall be required except in the landscap- ing section below. (2) Height: a. General: 1. A maximum of ninety five feet (95'). b. Special Height Allowances: 1. Heights may exceed the maximum height under conditional use permit. 2. When a building is adjacent to a residential lot zoned G -1, R -1 or R -2 on the City of Renton Zoning Map and designated as single family or low density multiple family on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, the building may exceed the height allowed in the adjacent residential zone by a maximum of twenty feet (20'). (3) Lot Coverage: Lot coverage for buildings are listed below, but do not pertain to the downtown area defined in Section 4- 715(a): a. Lot coverage for buildings shall not exceed sixty five percent (65 %) of the total lot area. b. Lot coverage may be increased up to seventy five percent (75 %) of the total lot area if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. (4) Parking: See Chapter 22, Title IV of the City Code. (5) Signs: See Chapter 19, Title IV of the City code. (6) Landscaping: Landscaping along areas abutting public streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of ten feet (10'), except for the downtown area as defined in Section 4- 715(a). a. Lot Line Requirements: 1. Fronting Public Streets: A minimum of ten feet (10'). 2. Special Requirements: If the B -1 lot is adjacent to a residential lot designated residential on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') landscaped strip or a five foot (5') wide sight obscuring landscaped strip and a solid six foot (6') high barrier used along the common boundary. F -37 1069;1269;976;277;979;384 4 -711 4 -711 D) (7) All on -site utility surface mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. (8) Roof -Top Equipment: All operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be shielded from view, except for telecommunication equipment. (9) Outdoor Storage: a. Permitted outdoor storage must be screened from adjacent properties and public rights of way. b. Materials covered by buildings with roofs but without sides shall be considered outside storage and subject to the screening provisions of this Section. (10) Refuse: All garbage, refuse or dumpsters contained within specified areas shall be screened, except for access points, by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof. E. _ Conditional Use Permit for Excess Height: In consideration of a request for conditional use permit for a building height in excess of ninety five feet (95') the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors in addition to the criteria in Section 4 -748, among all other relevant information. (1) Location Criteria: Proximity of arterial streets which have sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the development. Developments are encouraged to locate in areas served by transit. (2) Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. (3) Effect on Adjacent Properties: Buildings in excess of ninety five feet (95') in height at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. When a building in excess of ninety five feet (95') in height is adjacent to a multiple family lot zoned R -3 or R-4 on the City of Renton Zoning Map and Medium Density Multi - Family or High Density Multi - Family on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, then setbacks shall be equivalent to the requirements of the adjacent residential zone. (4) Building Height and Bulk: a. Buildings near public open spaces should permit visual access and, where feasible, physical access to the public open space. b. Whenever practicable, buildings should be oriented to minimize the shadows they cause on publicly accessible open spaces. E) (5) Light and Glare: Due consideration shall be given to mitigation of Tight and glare impacts upon streets, major public facilities, and major public open spaces. (Ord. 3750, 9- 26 -83) F -38 1069:1269:976:277:979:384 4 -736 4 -738 N) 8. The Building Department shall maintain the records of all variances and report them to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. (0) Appeals: The decision of any City official to approve or disapprove a permit or license in a flood hazard area may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The requested permit or license shall not be issued by a City Department during the appeal period. 1. The procedures for appeals from administrative determinations set forth in Section 4- 3011(B), as amended, shall apply. In addition to the criteria established in Section 4-3011(6) as amended, the Hearing Examiner shall consider all technical evaluations; all relevant standards, and the criteria specified in subsection (N)5 above. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 30, Title IV, the Hearing Examiner shall prepare a written report and decision containing findings and conclusions which show how its decision implements the purposes of this Section and is consistent with the criteria, standards and limitations of this Chapter. 3. The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless, within twenty (20) calendar days from the day of the Hearing Examiner's decision, an aggrieved party obtains a writ of certiorari from King County Superior Court for the purpose of review of the action taken. (Ord. 3537, 5 -4 -81) 4 -737: OUTSIDE STORAGE FACILITIES: Outside storage lots shall be effectively screened by a combination of landscaping and fencing. (A) A minimum of ten foot (10') landscaped strip is required between the property lines along public rights of way and the fence. The landscaping shall be of size and variety so as to provide an eighty percent (80 %) opaque screen. (B) The entire perimeter must be fenced by a minimum of an eight foot (8') high sight obscuring fence. Gates may be left unscreened for security purposes. (C) Storage areas may be surfaced with crushed rock or similar material to the approval of the Public Works Department to minimize dust, control surface drainage and provide suitable access. (Ord. 3653, 8- 23 -82) 4 -738: SITE PLAN REVIEW: (A) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of site plan approval shall be to assure that the site plan of proposed uses is compatible with existing and potential uses and complies with plans, policies and regulations of the City of Renton. Site plan elements subject to this Section include, but are not limited to, site layout, building orientation, pedestrian and vehicular access, signage, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and buffering, parking and loading arrangements, and illumination. Site planning is the horizontal and vertical arrangement of these elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. Site plan review does net clude design review, which addresses the aesthetic considerations of F -39 .86 4 -738 4 -738 A) architectural style, exterior treatment and colors. Site plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known, but before final building plans are completed. The intent of site plan approval shall be: 1. To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provi- sions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; 2. To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of develop- ment both on and off-site; 3. To promote coordination of public or quasi - public elements, such as walkways, driveways, paths, and landscaping, within segments of larger developments and between individual developments; 4. To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas; 5. To protect the desirable aspects of the natural landscape and environmental features of the City by minimizing the undesirable impacts of proposed developments on the physical environment; 6. To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed zones; 7. To provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housing while minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation, and intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities; 8. To promote the creation of "campus -like" and "park -like" settings in appropriate zones; 9. To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act; 10. To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes. (B) Applicability: 1. Except as noted below, site plan application and review shall be required for development as follows: For all development in the Manufacturing Park (M-P), Office Park (O-P), Public Use (P -1), and Business (B -1) Zones and the R -1 -5, R -2, R -3 and R-4 Residen- tial Zones, and for a I development with the Valley Planning Area (bounded by SR -167, S.W. 43rd Street, the Green River, the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, Maple Avenue S.W., as extended and Grady Way). 2. In all zones, the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of site plan review: (Ord. 3981, 4 -7 -86) F -40 886 4 -738 B,2) 4 -738 (a) Interior remodel of existing buildings or structures, provided: 1. The alterations conform with any prior approved site plan; and 2. The alterations do not modify the existing site layout. In addition, facade modifications such as the location of entrances /exits; the location of windows; changes in signage; or aesthetic alterations shall be exempt. (Ord. 4008, 7- 14 -86) (b) Planned unit developments (P.U.D.'s). (c) Conditional use permits. (d) Off- premise signs (billboards). (e) All development categorically exempt from review under the State Environment Policy Act (RCW 43.21C and WAC 197 -11) and under the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance (Title IV, Chapter 28). (f) Minor new construction, repair, remodeling and maintenance activities that would otherwise be exempt from SPA if they were not located within the Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction. 3. For development proposed on only a portion of a particular site, an appli- cant may choose to submit a site plan application for either the entire site or the portion of the site. In the latter case, the application shall state clearly the area of the site and the proposed development, including phases, for which site plan approval is being requested. In every 'case, the site plan application and review shall cover at (east that portion of the site which is directly related to or may be impacted by the actual proposed development, as determined by the Environmental Review Committee. (C) Site Plan Review Procedures: 1. All site plan applications shall be reviewed in the manner described below and in accordance with the purposes and criteria of this Section. The Building and Zoning Department may develop additional review procedures to supple- ment those required in this subsection. 2. Applicants are encouraged to consult early and informally with represen- tatives of the Building and Zoning Department and other affected departments. This consultation should include a general explanation of the requirements and criteria of site plan review, as well as the types of concerns that might be anticipated for the proposed use at the proposed site. (Ord. 3981, 4 -7 -86) 3. Upon receipt of a completed application in the form specified in subsection 4- 738(G) below, the Building and Zoning Department shall route the applica- tion for review and comment to various City Departments and other jurisdic- tions or agencies with an interest in the application. This routing should be combined with circulation of environmental information under the Renton Environmental Ordinance (Title IV, Chapter 28) and SEPA. (Ord. 4008, 7- 14 -86) 4. Whenever a completed site plan application is received, the Building and Zoning Department shall be responsible for providing public notice of the pending site plan application. This public notice shall be in the form of three (3) F -41 4— 738 4 — 738 C,4) signs placed on or near the subject property and clearly visible from the largest public street serving the property and a public notice mailed to all adjacent property owners at the applicant's expense. The applicant shall be responsible for providing completed mailing labels and postage. ( "Adjacent" shall mean all contiguous properties, with the assumption that railroads and public rights of way, except limited access roads, do not exist.) The notices shall state the nature and location of the proposed development, the public approvals that are required, and the opportunities for public comment. A fourteen (14) day public, comment period shall be provided prior to any final action by the City on a site plan application, whether or not a public hearing is required. 5. Comments from the reviewing departments shall be made in writing within fourteen (14) days. Unless a proposed site plan is subsequently modified, the recommendations of the reviewing departments shall constitute the final comments of the respective departments with regard to the proposed site plan. Lack of comment from a department shall be considered a recommendation for approval of the proposed site plan. However, all departments reserve the right to make later comments of a code compliance nature during building per- mit review. This includes such requirements as exact dimensions, specifica- tions or any other requirement specifically detailed in the City Code. 6. After the departmental comment period, the Building and Zoning Depart- ment shall notify the applicant of any negative comments or conditions recom- mended by the departments. When significant issues are raised, this notifica- tion should also normally involve a meeting between the applicant and appropriate City representatives. The applicant shall have the opportunity to respond to the notification either by submitting a revised site plan application, by submitting additional information, or by stating in writing why the recom- mendations are considered unreasonable or not acceptable. 7. Whenever a revised site plan or new information is received from an appli- cant, the Building and Zoning Department may re- circulate the application to concerned departments. Consulted departments shall respond in writing within ten (10) days with any additional comments. In general, the City's environmental determination of significance or non- signficance pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 28 will not be issued until after final departmental comments on the site plan or revised site plan are received. 8. Upon receipt of final departmental comments and after the close of the public comment period, the Environmental Review Committee shall determine the necessity for a public hearing on the site plan application. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required if: (a) The Environmental Review Committee determines that based on departmental comments or public input there are significant unresolved concems that are raised by the proposal; or (b) The applicant has requested a public hearing; or (c) The proposed project is larger than any one of the following: one hundred (100) multiple family residential units; F -42 486 4 -738 C,B,c) 4 -738 - One hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of gross floor area in the M -P Zone or other zones in the Valley Planning Area; - Twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area in the. B -1, O -P, or P -1 Zones outside the Valley Planning Area; four (4) stories or sixty, feet (60') in height; three hundred (300) parking stalls; or ten (10) acres in size. 9. Whenever a public hearing is required, the Building and Zoning Department shall coordinate with the Hearing Examiner in setting a hearing date for the site plan application. After conducting at least one public hearing on the site plan application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision pursuant to the provisions of Title IV, Chapter 30. The time limits of Title IV, Chapter 30 shall apply. In all cases, the public hearing for site plan review should be conducted concurrently with any other required hearing, such as rezone or sub- division, if the details of the development are sufficiently defined to permit adequate review. 10. When the Environmental Review Committee determines that a public hearing is not required, the proposed site plan shall be deemed approved, subject to any environmental mitigating measures that may be a part of the City's declara- tion of significance or nonsignificance. (D) Site Plan Review Criteria: The Hearing Examiner and City staff shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. General Criteria: (a) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies; (b) Conformance with existing land use regulations; (c) Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; (d) Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; (e) Conservation of area -wide property values; (f) Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; (g) Provision of adequate light and air; F -43 48' 4— 738 D,1) 486 4— 738 (h) Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; (i) Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and (j) Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. 2. Mitigation of Impacts to Surrounding Properties and Uses: (a) Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed structures and site layouts that could impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community; (b) Mitigation of undesirable impacts when an overscale structure, in terms of size, bulk, height, and intensity, or site layout is permitted that violates the spirit and /or intent of the Zoning Code and impairs the use, enjoyment or potential use of surrounding properties; (c) Provision of a desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility, walkway, and trial systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing and /or other buffering techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access to, such elements; (d) Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in rela- tion to the natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over - concentration of structures on a particular portion of a site such that they create a percep- tion of greater height orbulk than intended under the spirit of the Zoning Code; (e) Effective location, design and screening of parking and service areas in order to promote efficient function of such facilities, to provide integrated facilities between uses when beneficial, to promote "campus- like" or "park- like" layouts in appropriate zones, and to prevent unnecessary repetition and conflict between uses and service areas or facilities; (f) Mitigation of the unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construc- tion on views from existing buildings and future developable sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attrac- tive natural features and of promoting "campus- like" or "park- like" settings in appropriate zones; (g) Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted outdoor storage areas (except auto and truck sales), for surface mounted utility equipment, for rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote a "campus- like" or "park -like" setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the Zoning Code; (h) Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 3. Mitigation of Impacts of a Proposed Site Plan to the Site: F -44 4— 738 4-738 D,3) 486 (a) Building placement and spacing to provide for privacy and noise reduc- tion; orientation to views and vistas and to site amenities, to sunlight and prevail- ing winds, and to pedestrian and vehicle needs; (b) Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in rela- tion to the openness and natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over - concentration or the impression of oversized structures; (c) Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention of existing vegetation and limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed development; (d) Use of existing topography to reduce undue cutting, filling and retaining walls in order to prevent erosion and unnecessary storm water runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and desirable natural vegetation; (e) Limitation of paved or impervious surfaces, where feasible, to reduce runoff and increase natural infiltration; (f) Design and protection of planting areas so that they are not suscep- tible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements; (g) Consideration of building form and placement and landscaping to enhance year round conditions of sun and shade both on -site and on adjacent properties and to promote energy conservation. 4. Circulation and Access: (a) Provision of adequate and safe vehicular access to and from all properties; (b) Arrangement of the circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may occur at as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of channelization for turning movements; (c) Consolidation of access points with adjacent properties, when feasible; (d) Coordination of access points on a superblock basis so that vehicle conflicts and vehicle /pedestrian conflicts are minimized; (e) Orientation of access points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets, when feasible; (f) Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; areas; (g) Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian F -45 4 -738 4 -738 D,4) (h) Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access where appropriate; and (i) Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 5. Signage: (a) Employment of signs primarily for the purpose of identification; (b) Management of sign elements, such as size, location and arrange- ment so that signs complement the visual character of the surrounding area and appear in proportion to the building and site to which they pertain; (c) Limitation of the number of signs to avoid visual clutter and distraction; (d) Moderation of surface brightness or lighting intensity except for that necessary for sign visibility; and (e) Provision of an identification system to allow for quick location of buildings and addresses. (E) Authority for Approval and Modification: 1. The Hearing Examiner shall approve a site plan if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed site plan is consistent with the general purposes of this Section and with the review criteria. 2. The Hearing Examiner shall have the power to place reasonable conditions on or modify a site plan in order to satisfy the general purposes of this Section and to achieve consistency with the review criteria. However, strict compliance with any or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. Such conditions or modifications may include, but are not limited to, screening, buffering, building location and orientation, paving, landscaping, vegetation removal, grading and contouring. The Hearing Examiner shall also have the power to fix the location and configuration of driveways, walkways, parking and loading areas, emergency access, curbs, planting areas, and signs. When only a portion of a site is proposed for development, such power to condition, modify or fix shall be exercised only for that area which is directly related to or may be impacted by the actual proposed development. 3. To the extent necessary to meet the site review criteria and to the extent necessary to compensate for the impacts attributable to the proposed develop- ment, the Hearing Examiner may impose additional requirements, including: (a) Preparation of a landscape plan by a licensed landscape architect; (b) Preparation of a grading, drainage and erosion control plan; (c) Preparation of a vegetation preservation plan; F -46 886 4 -738 4 -738 E,3) (d) Improvements to identified or planned public rights of way, including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting, turn lanes, signalization, bikeways or pedestrian paths; and (e) Provision of or improvements to public facilities and utilities. 4. In all cases, if an applicant can demonstrate that a site plan can be made consistent with the review criteria and general purposes by alternative modifica- tions to the site plan, the Hearing Examiner shall accept the alternative modifica- tions as conditions of approval and approve the site plan. If a public hearing on the site plan application has already been closed, the modifications proposed by the applicant shall be administered according to subsection 4- 738(F) below. 5. If the Hearing Examiner finds that the site plan application cannot be made consistent with the general purposes and review criteria of this Section by requiring reasonable conditions, then the site plan shall be denied. 6. The authority to condition or deny site plan applications should be exercis- ed to the minimum extent necessary to protect the public interest and welfare as expressed in the purposes of this Section. (Ord. 3981, 4 -7 -86) (F) Major Adjustments: Major adjustments to an approved site plan require an amended application pursuant to subsections 4- 738(C) through (G). The review and approval shall rest with the approval body which approved the original site plan. Major adjustments involve a substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, use and the like generally involving more than a ten percent (10 %) change in area or scale. (G) Contents of Application: Each application for site plan review shall include an original plus six (6) copies of required forms together with seven (7) copies of all plans and supplemental information. 1. A completed site plan application form. Information on the application shall include the title, location, and legal description of the proposed development, together with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the recorded owners of the land and the •applicant, and when applicable, the name, address, telephone number and seal of any architect, planner, designer or engineer respon- sible for the preparation of the plan and any authorized representative of the applicant. 2. A completed environmental checklist when required. 3. A written description addressing the scope of the project, the nature and . size of each use, and a timetable for development, including phases. 4. A vicinity map, drawn at a scale of one inch equals two hundred feet 11" = 200'), showing site boundaries and existing roads and accesses within the boundary of the site. F =47 886 4 -738 4 -738 G) 5. A fully dimensioned site plan of the entire site or applicable portion thereof drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') (or other scale required by the Building and Zoning Department) showing: (a) Subject property (all property lines dimensioned) and abutting streets existing and proposed); (b) Location of the subject site with regards to the nearest street intersec- tions, including intersections opposite the subject property; (c) Location of existing driveways adjacent to the subject property or on the opposite side of the street facing the subject property; (d) All existing public improvements including, but not necessarily limited to: curb, gutter, and sidewalk; median islands; street trees; street lights; fire hydrants; utility poles, etc., including those adjacent to the subject site; (e) Location of existing and proposed fencing or retaining walls, free- standing signs, easements, refuse areas, and on -site utility structures; (f) Location and size of proposed structures, storage areas, buffer areas, yards, open spaces, and landscaped areas; (g) Proposed use of structures and gross floor area; (h) A circulation plan illustrating all access points for the site, and the size and location of all driveways, streets and roads, and the location, size and design of parking and loading areas; (1) Generalized grading plan, if the proposed grade differential on-site will exceed twenty four inches (24 ") from top of curb or adjacent properties; (j) Generalized utilities plan, drainage and stormwater runoff provisions; and (k) Topographic features and contours (existing and proposed), at intervals not greater than five feet (5'), and existing streams, lakes, marshes, and other natural features. 6. Copies of generalized architectural elevations of all proposed buildings and structures. 7. A graphic depicting proposed building signs, if known. 8. A landscaping plan indicating the proposed location and density of trees (deciduous or evergreen), shrubs and ground cover, and major existing trees. This information may be combined with the site plan. F -48 886 4 -738 4 -744 G) 9. Any other information deemed pertinent by the Building and Zoning Depart- ment, provided that the Department may also waive any of the above requirements when it is obvious from the scope or nature of the proposal that the information is not significant or helpful to an informed decision. 10. A fee as specified by ordinance. (Ord. 4008, 7- 14 -86) (H) Building Permits: No building permit shall be issued for any use requiring site plan approval pursuant to this Section until the Environmental Review Committee has determined that a public hearing is not required or the Hearing Examiner has approved or approved with conditions the site plan application. All building permits issued shall be in compliance with the approved site plan. (Ord. 3981, 4 -7 -86) (I) Time Limits: The final approval of a site plan shall expire within two (2) years of the date of approval. A single two (2) year extension may be granted for good cause by the approval body which approved the original site plan. The approval body may, however, determine at its discretion that a public hearing may be required for such extension. (Ord. 4008, 7- 14 -86) (J) Phasing: The Hearing Examiner may grant site plan approval for large projects planned to be developed or redeveloped in phases over a period of years exceeding the normal time limits of subsection 0) above. Such approval shall include clearly defined phases and specific time limits for each phase. If the time limits of a particular phase are not satisfied, then site plan approval for that phase and subsequent phases shall expire. The Hearing Examiner shall also determine if such a phased project will be eligible for any extensions of the time limits. As long as the development of a phased project conforms to the approved phasing plan, the zoning regulations in effect at the time of the original approval shall continue to apply. However, all construction shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations in force at the time of building permit application. (K) Appeals: The final decision by the Environmental Review Committee on whether a site plan application requires a public hearing may be appealed within four- teen (14) days to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Section 4- 3011(B). The final decision by the Hearing Examiner on a site plan application requiring a public hearing may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days pursuant to Section 4 -3016. (Ord. 3981, 4 -7 -86) 4 -739 through 4 -743: Reserved 4 -744: LANDSCAPING: (A) Purpose and Intent: Landscaping requirements are established to provide minimum landscaped standards necessary to maintain and protect property values and enhance the image and appearance of the City. These requirements apply to all uses except single family and two family residential uses. F -49 886