No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 03/12/2007 mmommmilimpamoommermiommogenk AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL 111111.1 REGULAR MEETING March 12, 2007 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Government Finance Officers Association Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Award 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. City Code amendments concerning: R-4 zone development clustering; R-1, R-4, and R-8 zone design standards; tree retention; and animal regulations(continued from 2/26/2007) b. Benson Hill Communities Annexation- 10%Notice of Intent to annex petition and resolution calling for an election for 2,438 acres located in the vicinity of SE 161st St., SE 158th St., 128th Ave. SE, 108th Ave. SE, SE 192nd St., and S. 200th St. 5. APPEAL: Planning&Development Committee Report re: The Landing INABILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE TESTIMONY ON APPEALS DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING State law requires that the City establish a process to handle appeals from application of environmental and developmental rules and regulations. The Renton City Council,feeling it was best for the elected representatives to handle the appeals rather than require citizens to go to court, has retained appellate jurisdiction to itself. The courts have held that the City Council,while sitting as an appellate body,is acting as a quasi-judicial body and must obey rules of procedure of a court more than that of a political body. By City Code,and by State law,the City Council may not consider new evidence in this appeal. The parties to the appeal have had an opportunity to address their arguments to the Planning&Development Committee of the City Council at a meeting previously held. Because of the court requirements prohibiting the City Council from considering new evidence, and because all parties have had an opportunity to address their concerns to the Planning&Development Committee,the City Council may not consider oral or written testimony at the City Council meeting. The Council understands that this is frustrating to citizens and is outside the normal process of open discourse provided to citizenry during the audience comment portion of the City Council meeting. However,this burden of not allowing the Council to be addressed concerning pending appeals is outweighed by the quick,easy,inexpensive and local appeal process provided by the Renton City Council. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 7. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer,please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 8. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be,accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/5/2007. Council concur. b. Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommends approval of settlement documents and related terms regarding the basic programming service rate related to the City's cable franchise renewal process. Refer to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on 3/26/2007. c. Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommends approval of settlement terms regarding the maximum permitted equipment and installation rates related to the City's cable franchise renewal process. Refer to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on 3/26/2007. d. City Clerk submits 2/6/2007 Special Election certification from King County Records and Elections for Proposition No. 1 for the Preserve Our Annexation Area Annexation to the City of Renton. The result of the special election is as follows: 651 "for annexation" votes and 1,017 "against annexation" votes; FAILED. Information. e. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends approval of the 2006 annual update of the City's Zoning Book and Wall Map. Council concur. (See 11.a. for ordinance.) f. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends approval of a resolution regarding the proposed King County Events Center. Council concur. (See 11.b. for resolution.) g. Finance and Information Services Department recommends approval of the 2007 Budget amendment ordinance in the total amount of$26,386,553. Council concur. (See 11.b. for ordinance.) 9. CORRESPONDENCE 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk(*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Finance Committee: Vouchers; Leases for 5th Floor of 200 Mill Building b. Planning&Development Committee: Setting Compensation for Street Vacation(VAC-05-002); Setting Compensation for Street Vacation(VAC-06-001); Setting Compensation for Street Vacation(VAC-06-004) c. Transportation(Aviation) Committee: Contract with MacLeod Reckord for Trails and Bikeways Study and Map d. Utilities Committee: Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II Special Assessment District Establishment 11. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions: a. Calling for an annexation by election of the Benson Hill Communities Area (see 4.b.) b. Proposed King County Events Center(see 8.f.) Ordinances for first reading: a. 2006 amendments to zoning classifications of properties (see 8.e.) b. 2007 Budget amendments(see 8.g.) Ordinance for second and final reading: Extending the effectuation date for Phase II of the Merritt II Annexation (1st reading 3/5/2007) (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 4 12. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 13. AUDIENCE COMMENT 14. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Conference Room 5:30 p.m. Emerging Issues (Legislation& Economic Development) Council Chambers Approximately 6 p.m. Carry Forward Items from Budget Adoption; Parks Maintenance Facility • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES.&THURS.AT 11 AM&9 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9 AM&7 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1 PM&9 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting March 12, 2007 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TONI NELSON, Council President; DENIS LAW; TERRI BRIERE; MARCI COUNCILMEMBERS PALMER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER DAN CLAWSON. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative ATTENDANCE Officer; ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; Economic Development Director; REBECCA LIND, Planning Manager; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; MICHAEL BAILEY, Finance and Information Services Administrator; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; CHIEF I. DAVID DANIELS and DEPUTY CHIEF LARRY RUDE, Fire Department, CHIEF KEVIN MILOSEVICH and COMMANDER KENT CURRY, Police Department. • • SPECIAL PRESENTATION Finance and Information Services Administrator Bailey announced that the City Finance: 2005 CAFR Award of Renton has once again won an award for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report from the Government Finance Officers Association. He explained that the association has a peer review program that reviews both the financial reports and the budgets. Mr. Bailey noted that in addition to being recognized for meeting the association's criteria, the peer review program also provides the City with comments and suggestions on how to more effectively communicate the fiscal integrity of the City to citizens. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: City Code Amends accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker reopened the public re R-4 Zone &Tree Retention hearing continued from 2/26/2007 to consider City Code amendments &Animal Regulations pertaining to: R-4 (four dwelling units per acre)zone development clustering; R-1, R-4, and R-8 zone design standards; tree retention; and animal regulations. Economic Development Administrator Pietsch stated that the proposed amendments originated through the work of the East Renton Plateau Citizen Task Force, which was formed to discuss potential zoning for the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area, and can be put to use within the existing City limits. Planner Manager Lind explained that currently, small lot cluster development is only allowed in the R-4 zone when within 600 feet of the R-8 zone. The proposed amendment allows clustering throughout the R-4 zone, which provides incentive for open space and helps achieve maximum density in the zone. Turning to residential design standards, Ms. Lind reported that currently,design features are required only in cluster developments, and vertical facade modulation is required only in the R-4 zone. The proposal requires design features and a vertical facade modulation throughout the R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones. She noted that the three required architectural features are decorative hipped or gabled roofs, trim on windows and doors, and projecting eaves. March 12,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 83 Continuing with the tree retention and tree replacement regulations, Ms. Lind indicated that the proposal addresses strengthening the regulations and is part of an ongoing work program to maintain and improve Renton's tree canopy. She noted that established neighborhoods and developing neighborhoods(or infill neighborhoods) may have different priorities in tree retention. Regarding tree removal, Ms. Lind reported that the proposed changes: eliminate the standard based on intensity of development, allow removal of three trees on any lot 35,000 square feet or less, and allow removal of six trees on a lot larger than 35,000 square feet. Regarding tree retention, Ms. Lind reviewed the proposed changes such as requiring 30 percent retention, or a minimum of 25 trees per acre, in the RC, R- 1, R-4, and R-8 zones. In more intense residential zones, 10 percent retention, or a minimum of ten trees per acre is required. Turning to animal regulations, Ms. Lind pointed out that the proposal addresses large animal regulations and that an additional work program currently exists for small and medium animals. She explained that the proposal allows property owners with at least one acre to keep two large animals. Additionally, the process is simplified to apply for more animals, and non-conforming uses are allowed to continue. Ms. Lind further explained that the permitting of the keeping of a greater number of animals than allowable will be decided administratively, and the keeping of animals that are a non-conforming use is transferable with the sale of the property and replacement is allowed. Ms. I,,ind reported that the proposed amendments are still being reyiewed by the Planning Commission. The matter will then go before the Planning and Development Committee, who will forward a final recommendation to Council. In response to Council inquiries, Ms. Lind said the proposal provides that all removed trees must be replaced; however,they can be replaced in a different configuration. In regard to affordable housing and the potential cost increases due to the regulations, she indicated that input from a broader group of builders will be sought as part of this review process. Ms. Lind confirmed that under current regulations, if a property owner owns two large animals on a 4,000 square foot lot,the animals would be non-conforming and could not be replaced. She also confirmed that under the proposed regulations, the animals would be non-conforming but the animal entitlement would run with the land. Public comment was invited. Garrett Huffman, South King County Manager of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, 335 116th Ave. SE, Bellevue, 98004, expressed his approval of the clustering regulations, and his concerns regarding the tree retention and design regulations and their negative affect on the affordability of housing. He noted that it is becoming more and more difficult for people to afford houses in this general region. Mr. Huffman indicated that members of the Master Builders Association would welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendments with the City. Additionally, he suggested the use of incentives to encourage added amenities to development projects. Ronda Bryant, East Renton Plateau Citizen Task Force Member, 6220 SE 2nd Pl., Renton, 98059, pointed out the uniqueness of the East Renton Plateau area, saying that residents want to retain the flavor of their neighborhood and their quality of life. She pointed out that unlike other areas that have already been built out, the East Renton Plateau still has two- to five-acre parcels with lots of March 12,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 84 trees and large animals. Ms. Bryant expressed support for having the animal ownership entitlement run with the land, and she thanked staff for all of their hard work with the task force. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Annexation: Benson Hill This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Communities, S 200th St& accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing 128th Ave SE to consider the 10%Notice of Intent petition calling for an election on annexation of 2,428 acres located to the south and west of the Renton City limits, in the vicinity of S. 200th St. and 128th Ave. SE (Benson Hill Communities). Senior Planner Erickson reported that the 4.2-square-mile site has an estimated population of 16,100, approximately 93 acres of parks, 45 linear miles of road, and approximately 7,854 dwellings and 430,000 square feet of retail space. He stated that public services are currently provided by Fire District#40, Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and the Renton (98%) and Kent(2%) school districts. The services would remain the same upon annexation with the exception of the fire service, which would change to the City of Renton. Mr. Erickson reviewed Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the site, and he reviewed how the proposal is consistent with relevant City annexation policies. Mr. Erickson pointed out that although not the designated sewer and water,service provider, Renton will provide a full array of high quality urban municipal services to the area, including police, fire, recreation, street maintenance, land use and transportation planning,permitting, and accessible government. He also pointed out that the proposed annexation is in compliance with Boundary Review Board objectives. For the fiscal analysis, Mr. Erickson used information from the 2005 Berk and Associates annexation study. The estimated net operating cost to the City in 2005 dollars is approximately$681,000, including responsibility for Fire District#40's Fire Station#42, but excluding the site's Renton Pool. He noted that the preliminary costs are currently under review, and City departments are also reviewing the transitional costs the City will incur upon annexation for items such as equipment purchases. Continuing, Mr. Erickson noted that because of the area's size and the State Legislature's adoption of SSB 6686 in 2006, Renton qualifies for a 0.1%sales and use tax rebate that could be used to cover the discrepancy between revenues and operating costs for the first ten years. To qualify under SSB 6686, the City has to effectuate the annexation before 1/1/2010. He explained that major efficiencies exist by bringing in the area at one time rather than through multiple smaller annexations. These efficiencies include economy of scale from allowing Renton policy to drive growth rather than King County policy,and economic development initiatives focused on Cascade commercial areas. Mr. Erickson indicated that since the annexation petition was certified on January 23, the deadline for Council action on this matter is March 24. He stated that if Council adopts the resolution authorizing an election, staff recommends not placing the issues of future zoning and assumption of a proportionate share of Renton's outstanding indebtedness on the ballot. Mr. Erickson noted that the City's voter approved outstanding indebtedness is small and near retirement. mow e March 12,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 85 Letters were read from Jeanette M. Millmann, 10620 SE 186th St., Renton, 98055, and Ruth Pearson and Otto Pearson, 19112 104th P1. SE, Renton, 98055, each expressing support for the annexation of the Benson Hill communities area to the City of Renton. Public comment was invited. Matt Berntson, 12040 SE 188th St., Renton, 98058, voiced support for the annexation, noting that his neighbors are also enthusiastic about the proposal. Pointing out that he prefers Renton's development standards over King County's, Mr. Berntson urged Council to adopt the election resolution. Tom Reiter, 18001 113th Ave. SE, Renton, 98055, recognized the people in the audience from the Benson Hill communities area, and asked that the issue move forward. Dave McCammon, 17221 125th Ave. SE, Renton, 98058, expressed support for the annexation, asking that Council adopt the resolution to give him the opportunity to vote on the issue. Todd Fennell, 17223 116th Ave. SE, Renton, 98058, said although he looks forward to annexing to Renton, he is concerned about how annexation will affect the zoning of his property. Pointing out that he has made investments based upon R-18 zoning and will incur a loss if zoned R-8, Mr. Fennell asked that this specific area's zoning be re-evaluated. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL: ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION ON THE QUESTION OF THE BENSON HILL COMMUNITIES ANNEXATION TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE AFFECTED VOTERS IN THE FALL;NOT PLACE ON THE BALLOT THE QUESTION OF FUTURE ZONING; NOT PLACE ON THE BALLOT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD ASSUME THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE CITY'S OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS; AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD SO THAT A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD CAN BE HELD THIS SUMMER. CARRIED. (See page 89 for resolution.) APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Planning& Development regarding the appeal by Alliance for South End(ASE) of the 1) administrative Committee decision designating The Landing master site plan application a planned action Appeal: The Landing Site and; 2)the master site plan approval. Plan, Alliance for South End, This appeal came before the Committee on 2/15/2007. The Committee SA-05-136 reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated 9/5/2006, which dismissed for lack of standing the ASE appeals from: 1)the Director's designation of The Landing master plan application as a planned action; and 2) the Director's master site plan approval. The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein, and heard argument from the attorneys representing the various parties. Finding no substantial error in fact or law, the Committee recommended that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. The Committee further recommended that the Council adopt the findings and conclusions affirming the March 12,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 86 Hearing Examiner's decision. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: * Washington State Department of Transportation will hold a Full Access Control Hearing for the I-405/1-5 to SR-169 State 2 - Widening and SR-515 Interchange project on 3/20/2007 at Renton City Hall. * As part of Maplewood Golf Course's ongoing effort towards Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Certification, Eagle Scout Jordan Fagerlie and Boy Scout Troop #448 built and installed eleven bird nesting boxes in unplayable areas on the golf course last weekend. AUDIENCE COMMENT Gwendolyn High, 13405 158th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, stated her hope that Citizen Comment: High- although the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation was not successful, the lessons Transition Planning for learned will help other communities with their annexation efforts. Commending Annexations the accomplishments of the East Renton Plateau Citizen Task Force, Ms. High noted the importance of transition planning and the need to educate the King County Council about the use of this type of planning. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Councilmember Persson, item 8.f. was removed for separate consideration. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/5/2007. Council concur. 3/5/2007 City Clerk: Cable Franchise, Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended approval Basic Programming Service of settlement documents and related terms regarding the basic programming Rate service rate related to the City's cable franchise. Refer to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on 3/26/2007. City Clerk: Cable Franchise, Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended approval Permitted Equipment& of settlement terms regarding the maximum permitted equipment and Installation Rates installation rates related to the City's cable franchise. Refer to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on 3/26/2007. City Clerk: 2007 Special City Clerk submitted 2/6/2007 Special Election certification from King County Election Certification Records and Elections for Proposition No. 1 for the Preserve Our Plateau (Preserve Our Plateau Annexation Area Annexation to the City of Renton. The result of the special Annexation) election is as follows: 651 "for annexation" votes and 1,017 "against annexation" votes; FAILED. Information. Zoning: 2006 Annual Update Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department of Zoning Book& Wall Map recommended approval of the 2006 annual update of the City's Zoning Book and Wall Map. Council concur. (See page 89 for ordinance.) Budget: 2007 Amendments Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of the 2007 Budget amendment ordinance. Council concur. (See page 89 for ordinance.) MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 8.f. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. March 12,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 87 Separate Consideration Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Item 8.f. recommended adoption of a resolution regarding the proposed King County Planning: Multipurpose Events Events Center.* Center(Sonics& Storm Councilmember Persson stated that he does not understand why this resolution Basketball) has to be adopted this evening, as it is premature. He explained that it will appear as though the Council has already made a decision and then will proceed to ask for input on the matter, which is the wrong message to send to citizens. *Moved by Briere, seconded by Nelson, Council approve item 8.f. as presented.* Councilmember Corman indicated that the matter deserves further discussion. He stated that the City is paying a consultant to conduct an economic analysis to learn whether this project is suitable for the City, and yet some of the whereas statements in the resolution already assume the answer to the question. Mr. Corman pointed out that the resolution may be appropriate in the future; however, the data is not yet available. *Roll call on motion: two ayes: Nelson, Briere; four nays: Law, Palmer, Persson, Corman. Failed. Mayor Keolker noted that the matter was discussed by Council at its retreat, and that no comments were received regarding the resolution, which was sent out in advance of this meeting. Councilmember Persson stated that the resolution does not reflect the comments he made at the retreat. He indicated that language stating that Renton has not committed any money should be listed first. Councilmember Briere pointed out that the resolution states the fact that the proposed site is already zoned to allow arenas. She noted that the resolution also communicates that the City will not do anything until it is known how the proposal affects the fiscal health of the City, thus providing reassurance of that to the public. Ms. Briere stated that the resolution establishes a base for what the City will and will not do. Council President Nelson stated that she was under the impression that Councilmembers were to submit their comments regarding the resolution prior to the Council meeting, and she expressed her disappointment that this did not occur. She questioned whether it is the resolution that is not wanted or the proposed stadium itself that is not wanted. Councilmember Briere suggested that the matter be put on hold for another week to allow for the submittal of comments to the City Attorney. Councilmember Palmer stated that the feedback she is receiving from citizens is overwhelming against having the arena on that site. She asserted that it does not matter what the resolution states, as she does not want the arena in Renton. Councilmember Briere noted that the feedback she has received from people is excitement for this potential opportunity. Councilmember Corman questioned the need for a resolution at all,pointing out that the site is already zoned for a stadium and the City cannot prevent someone from building one if they have the capital to do so. He stated that he is undecided and wants to revisit the matter when more information is available, such as the results of the City's economic study and whether King County citizens vote to provide a subsidy. March 12,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 88 Councilmember Law pointed out that some people may think that a decision has been made by the way the resolution is written. Mr. Law stated that there is not enough information to make that decision, and he does not want to send out the wrong message. Mr. Law indicated that he is willing to work on the resolution, with the emphasize that the City has yet to know anything about infrastructure dollars, revenues, and impacts. Council discussion ensued regarding the whereas statements in the resolution, the placement of the language in the resolution, the hurdles that need to be crossed before it is known whether the stadium is even possible, the discussion of this matter at the Council retreat, and the requests for more information. Mayor Keolker expressed her hope than an appropriate resolution can be crafted, as it will provide direction to the Administration. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Planning& Development recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal Committee submitted by Jack Alhadeff for the vacation of a ten-foot walkway, Vacation: Walkway, NW 6th approximately 163 feet in length, located between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. St&Rainier Ave N, AHBL, N. The Committee further recommended setting compensation at$9,800 for the VAC-06-001 walkway vacation. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Vacation: Walkway, NW 6th Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report St&Rainier Ave N, JDA recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal Group, VAC-05-002 submitted by Jack Alhadeff for the vacation of a ten-foot walkway, approximately 1.87 feet in length, located east of NW 6th St. The Committee' further recommending setting compensation at$6,000 for the walkway vacation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Vacation: Field Ave NE, ESM Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Consulting Engineers, VAC- recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal 06-004 submitted by Matt Cyr, ESM Consulting Engineers, for the street vacation of a 30-foot by 30-foot portion of Field Ave. NE, approximately 318 feet north of NE 2nd St. The Committee further recommended setting compensation at $6,850 for the street vacation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation(Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor Transportation: Trails and and City Clerk to execute the contract with MacLeod Reckord in the amount of Bikeways Study and Map, $158,131.20 for a trails and bikeways study and map. MOVED BY PALMER, MacLeod Reckord SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 257571 - 257962 and three wire transfers totaling $4,626,332.03; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 67932 - 68063, one wire transfer, and 789 direct deposits totaling$2,127,185.67. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. March 12,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 89 Community Services: 200 Mill Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Building Leases(5th Floor), concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve leases with United Way of Network 211 &Children's King County, Washington Information Network 211, and Children's Home Home Society& United Way Society of Washington, for collocated space on the fifth floor of the 200 Mill Building. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the leases. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Vice Chair Briere presented a report recommending SAD: Central Plateau concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the preliminary Central Interceptor Phase II Plateau Interceptor Phase II Special Assessment District(SAD). The Committee further recommended that staff proceed with the establishment of the final SAD upon completion of the construction of the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II Sanitary Sewer Main project. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3863 A resolution was read calling for the annexation, by election, of contiguous Annexation: Benson Hill unincorporated territory to the City of Renton and referred to as the Benson Hill Communities, S 200th St& Communities Annexation; stating the number of registered voters residing 128th Ave SE therein as nearly as may be; calling for an election on 11/6/2007 to submit to voters of the territory the proposal for annexation; and authorizing the City Clerk to file with King County Boundary Review Board a notice of intention as well as to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of County Commissions of King County and the King County Review Board, and to take those actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters, including the preparation of information for the voter's pamphlet. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 3/19/2007 for second and final reading: Zoning: 2006 Annual Update An ordinance was read adopting the 2006 amendments to the zoning of Zoning Book& Wall Map classifications of properties located within the City of Renton. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 3/19/2007. CARRIED. Budget: 2007 Amendments An ordinance amending the City of Renton Fiscal Year annual 2007 Budget as adopted by Ordinance 5245, in the total amount of$26,405,693. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 3/19/2007. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5266 An ordinance was read amending Ordinance 5207 by changing the effective Annexation: Merritt II, SE date of Phase II of the Merritt II Annexation to the City of Renton. The May Valley Rd& Coal Creek annexation will be effective on 12/31/2007, or 30 days after the awarding of the Parkway construction for the Duvall Ave. Improvement project, whichever comes first. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. March 12,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 90 NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE Finance: Fund Balance FUND BALANCE RESERVES AND THE ANNUAL CAPITAL Reserves, Annual Capital IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Improvement Plan AUDIENCE COMMENT Diane Paholke, 243 W. Perimeter Rd., Renton, 98057, stated that as a result of Citizen Comment: Paholke - the potential changes at the Renton Airport, her business, Pro-Flight Aviation, Jet Center at Airport, Gangs in receives numerous questions and requests for information. In response, she Neighborhood developed a website, which provides basic aviation information and information regarding the potential changes. On another subject, Ms. Paholke thanked the Police Department for helping to eliminate the gangs in her neighborhood. Citizen Comment: Duffle - Joe Duffie, City of Tukwila Councilmember, 5332 S. 140th St., Tukwila, Council Meeting 98168, indicated that it was a great pleasure to attend the Council meeting tonight, and he encouraged everyone to keep up the good work. Citizen Comment: McOmber- Howard McOmber,475 Olympia Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, stated that the Multipurpose Events Center Council is wise to use a measured approach in regards to the potential siting of a (Sonics & Storm Basketball) multipurpose events center in Renton. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:56 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann • March 12, 2007 wrrrr RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 12, 2007 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 3/19 Emerging Issues in Community Services (Nelson) 5:30 p.m. *Council Conference Room* Approximately Cable TV Franchise Settlement Briefing; 6 p.m. Utility Rates Introduction *Council Chambers* COMMUNITY SERVICES MON., 3/19 Appointment of Peter Hartley to Library (Corman) 5:15 p.m. Board FINANCE (Persson) • PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 3/15 CANCELLED (Briere) PUBLIC SAFETY MON., 3/19 Juvenile Prosecution (briefing only); (Law) 4:15 p.m. Transit Center Safety Concerns (briefing only) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) (Palmer) UTILITIES THURS., 3/15 CANCELLED (Clawson) NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. ` Y O o' CID CITY CODE AMENDMENTS PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TREE RETENTION REGULATIONS,RESIDENTIAL-4 (R-4) DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, DESIGN REGULATIONS,AND ANIMAL REGULATIONS March 12,2007 TREE RETENTION The proposed changes are intended to strengthen the regulations for tree retention in residential zones. Current regulations allow the removal of trees on existing lots based on both the size of the lot and whether the lot is developed,partially developed, or undeveloped. The proposed regulations would simplify this requirement and base it only on lot size. Tree retention requirements would also be implemented, so that in the RC, R-1, R-4 and R-8 zones 30%of the trees (or a minimum of 25 trees) in the net developable area of the site would be retained. In more intense residential zones, 10%of the trees or 10 trees per acre would be retained. If trees could not be retained, they would need to be replaced at a rate of 12 caliper-inches of trees (e.g. six two-inch trees) for each tree required to be retained. There would also be provision that would allow the City to bring in a third party, at the applicant's expense,to review tree retention or replacement plans. Proposed changes in the tree retention regulations would require additional tree protection measures for retained trees during grading and construction. Changes primarily affect RMC 4-4-130 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, but to ensure consistency, proposed changes to RMC 4-4-070 Landscaping, RMC 4-7-130 Environmental Consideration(for ,, subdivisions), RMC 4-8-120 Submittal Requirements, RMC 4-9-195 Routine Vegetation Management ow Permits and RMC 4-11-210 Definitions are also included. RESIDENTIAL-4 (R-4) ZONE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CHANGES Changes include deletion of the text that states that small lot cluster development is only permissible in the Residential Four Dwelling Units per acre zone when within 600 feet of the Residential Eight Dwelling Units per acres zone. Small Lot Cluster development will be allowed throughout the Residential Four Dwelling units per acre zoning designation. DESIGN REGULATIONS Amendment includes addition of text that requires vertical façade modulation, as required in the Residential Four Dwelling Units per acre zone, to both the Residential One Dwelling Unit per acre zone and the Residential Eight Dwelling Units per zone. Also, addition of text requiring architectural features, as required in Small Lot Cluster development, to the residential zones: Residential One Dwelling Unit per acre, Residential Four Dwelling Units per acre, and the Residential Eight Dwelling Units per acre. These architectural features include decorative hip or gable roofs, trim on windows and doors, and projecting eaves. ANIMAL REGULATIONS CHANGES Change to the text that allows a maximum of one large animal per acre to allow a maximum of two large animals per acre in residential zones: Resource Conservation, Residential One Dwelling Unit per acre, and Residential Four Dwelling Units per acre. Also includes a change in the permitting of conditional uses for greater than the allowable number of animals from the hearing examiner to an administrative decision. Also, deletion of the animal replacement and transferability clauses in the nonconforming uses Nowsection that would allow the use of large animals to run with the land. Council Hearing Handout 3-12-07.doc , , em a 1, l ly� � f d R. 10 f x.'1 'At4 , Ky i,"k',_ ,i ^Y > yam,: ,' R-4 Zone Clustering, Design Standards in R-1 , R-4 and R-8 Zones, Tree Retention, and Large Animals Public Hearing March 12, 2007 Renton City Council .. 3 a 1 Issue One: R-4 Zone Clustering ♦R-4 zone mapped in Kennydale and East Plateau ♦Clustering now only allowed within 600 feet of R-8 zone ♦Proposal is to allow throughout the zone ♦Creates more flexibility -Incentive for open space -Helps achieve maximum density in the zone -No density bonus Change to R-4 Cluster Standards Current Code Proposed Code -Small lot cluster development -Small lot cluster development is only allowed in R-4 when is allowed throughout the within 600 ft of R-8 zone R-4 zone -To do cluster: -To do cluster (NO CHANGE): - Must set aside 30% of land - Must set aside 30% of land permanently, permanently, - can be reduced to 20% if: - can be reduced to 20% if: - Provide public access to - Provide public access to open space open space - Soft surface trails are - Soft surface trails are provide in wetland areas provide in wetland areas:. - Storm water ponds allow - Storm water poo• . ; :004, passive/active use assive/actin " ;$ 2 Clustering Standard Subdivision Sm .Na1�RAx7 - �.Oil�:/d ^TnW -r 1 11 ---f-- -;- ev . -........_ % .. ,„)-1, • Same number of units achieved in both scenarios. . :µ�,„; ;4� ,,�.- • 18 total units _,I.^w k.4 - ` f • h: :y, • ..„ ] R z3en i. ��5� jyrr .��' ."ro .� 1 't^ :',.s.:;,,-;,:: ¢, - NOM 1 , Br .` ', � a. � w .. ,f�� . a t t� �b?`ffi� is FfYt _ -,,i.'$ .� 3 t r ` ab s x3 w �. ' ,*atm w 1 _ y s. { $£ tyam f , 't q' y _4� ,,. �Turi2 1 rY 2 _. -" i �.tI ,xc, .,.3 J GTY OP RENTON ZGNINGMAP �' l� ��. 1.6 AVNIFM 9 � y ta.o...vb.. (.-, �s '.w�..,...,.a. Ca".eweow.ar-wn, .� N T�d Mo....* M.w. �Fd.+�..+.� r Issue Two: Residential Design Standards ♦Recommendation originated with the East Renton Task Force ♦Implement Community Design policies adopted in 2004 -Proposal to expand existing requirements ♦More extensive work program addressing larger "quality of development" issues -Part of annual docket -End of Year 'd, 4 Standards — 3 Minimum Architectural Features and One Façade Standard Current Code Proposed Code ■ Design features are ■Design features required only in required throughout cluster developments the R-1, R-4, and R- •Vertical façade 8 zones modulation required ■Vertical façade only in R-4 zone modulation required throughout the R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones Required Architectural Feature #1 ■ Decorative hipped or gabled roof Hip Gabled 131 5 Required Architectural Feature #2 • • Trim on windows and doors -,?' - , ..,„-:::,:iiVX• , —— - " ;,' , ,,,, .4*Vpr.,.• c -;,: ,:f.Iffb,. , .'. ..: , i :••,::.. , , =1 ,g,, `,,,, ,efrtt4 •,,, ' -. i.. ; , .;''`r.",';: P • 't ,' tl, A c,',':, *i.); 4 ..'-' 4 .:..:.:,,,, 1.,; ,Z4 V1.-1,...". .1..,.• ,", 0! . '$4.4,'Z'• 1 t 4, , -, - ;,t..s ::,,, -4, It:,', 0 -:;;,...,0'l'.•.;r:42.t ,',' Nittir4WKsi-'41044vir'. .'.M,4* ,—, ., - - , MAgnit741. ..... ,.. . ,. . '#7-;';', ':,,,...c.• ,Ii,.,,,,,,, 2:. Required Architectural Feature #3 • Projecting eaves .., i . _.... ', ......1 ....."...'' ..,.....„.,,......, , ...1 ,,,:- , .A',,.,/,%„..i.,4.,,,i, 1,4„,...,,,,`-','.'fgro',...`,9,1!!'..-.%:',„',a,.,,,, ,,.%:, ,wArpo ,,,,,Ak,-,:: :-.,;1744.,:;,--,:.;:,-;:.:,-„.-,,,,,s,,c 6 Vertical Façade Modulation Required • Façade Modulation V \ / Ns e-;:n [3] ,f'--72 Fil *MO Issue Three: Tree Retention/Replacement •Planning Commission and East Renton Task Force •Specific proposal for strengthening tree retention regulations •This is part of an on-going work program to maintain and improve Renton's tree canopy 16'41,11%, 7 Issues and Assumptions *There are good reasons for retaining trees and good reasons for removing trees ♦Established neighborhoods and developing neighborhoods (or infill neighborhoods) may have different priorities in tree retention •Comprehensive Plan provides broad support for tree retention and preservation •RMC authorizes the City to require retention, but needs improvement •2006 Director's Rule has been used to interpret and implement RMC authority -"' Allowed Minor Removal Activities Current Code Proposed Code •Current code based on •Proposed code would both lot size and eliminate standard intensity of development based on intensity of •Creates loophole that development allows complete clearing •3 trees may be of some lots 1/2 acre or removed on any lot less 35,000 s.f. or less *Some lots may remove ♦6 trees may be either 3 or 6 trees removed on a lot larger depending on size than 35,000 s.f. *Standards will be reviewed in larger wp program -4440 gyp.., a ^r ;Vyz 8 Retention Requirements ♦RC, R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones- require 30% retention, or minimum 25 trees per acre ♦More intense residential zones require 10% retention, or minimum 10 trees per acre ♦Critical Areas and proposed ROW areas excluded from retention requirements ♦Each retained tree that is removed will be replaced by 12 caliper inches of trees, at 2" minimum diameter ♦Replanting subject to replacement standard t210-.:,,,t; On-Going Work Program ♦Interdepartmental Work program -Landscape requirements -Urban Forestry ♦Citywide Tree Plan ♦Tree Canopy µxi Ast s s 9 • Issue Four: Animal Regulations, Recommendations of the East Renton Task Force *Apply citywide and to areas annexing through the 60% petition process -Changes to large animal regulations -Additional work program for small and medium animals, pets •Includes Council referral on pigeons •Non Traditional Pets t f -Part of Docket later in 2007 1 ° N `'" .(:» .gid ,v,,,c,-,7",% Animal Regulations — Large Animals Current Code Proposed Code - Allows property - Allow property owners owners with at least 1 with at least 1 acre to acre to keep 1 large keep 2 large animals animal - Simplify process to - Allowed in RC, R-1, apply for more animals and R-4 zones - Allow non-conforming uses to continue ;ego I ^fir:. � 1.N � �ri 10 Changes Permit Requirements Current Code Proposed Code • The permitting of the • The permitting of the keeping a greater number keeping a greater number of animals (small, of animals (small, medium, or large) than medium, or large) than allowable is decided by allowable decided hearing examiner administratively • The keeping of animals • The keeping of animals that are a non-conforming that are a non-conforming use is not transferable use is transferable with with the sale of the the sale of the property property and and replacement is replacement of the allowed animal is not allowed ,' :4671 fir Next Steps p *Continued Review and Comment Opportunities -Planning Commission March 21 -Planning and Development Committee *Planning and Development Committee will forward a final recommendation to the Council let p.. • W � r� 11 • From: Julia Medzegian To: Garrett Huffman Date: 2/23/2007 2:49:36 PM Subject: Re: 2-26-2007 Code Amendments Public Hearing Dear Mr. Huffman, I am forwarding your comments for the public hearing to our City Clerk, Bonnie Walton, for addition to the public record. On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for taking the time to share your comments and concerns. Sincerely, Julia Medzegian City Council Liaison 425-430-6501 >>> "Garrett Huffman" <ghuffman©mbaks.com> 2/22/07 4:11:43 PM >>> February 22, 2007 The Honorable Toni Nelson, President The Honorable Dan Clawson The Honorable Denis Law The Honorable Don Persson The Honorable Marcie Palmer The Honorable Randy Corman The Honorable Terri Briere Dear Council President and Councilmembers, As the Council deliberates the over the adoption of new tree retention requirements and design guidelines for MBA members, I would like include some materials that may prove useful to the discussion. King County recently released the King County Benchmarks: 2006 Affordable Housing Report, which indicates the progress of implementation of Countywide Planning Policies. The opening headline from the Report states "Affordable Housing Not Available for Many King County Households" and goes on to conclude the average wage earner would need to earn 46 percent more income to afford the median priced house in 2005. The average priced home cost $332,000 in 2005, which means the income necessary to afford that home at 30 percent of household income was $88,400. Unfortunately, the average wage earner only brought home $60,700, or enough to afford a $228,100 house. I have attached the Report for your consideration and have also included a study from the Washington Employment Security Division identifying those jobs that make below the median income in the Seattle Everett Bellevue market. My point to all this information is that the ordinances currently being considered by the Planning Commission and City Council do not come without a cost. Many of the changes being recommended by staff reduce the number of lots a developer/builder is able to achieve in a project thereby increasing the cost to the consumer. The more regulation that is added to my members ability to construct homes, the more the consumer will pay when purchasing that home. Tree retention and design standards do not come without a cost and before anything is adopted, a financial analysis needs to be performed to truly understand how much the price of housing in Renton will be affected by these ordinances. Although everyone likes full grown trees, pretty housing and being farther from his/her neighbor, the consumer when asked if he/she would prefer full grown trees, extra trim on the house, and further setbacks or$20,000 off the purchase price, the answer is always the cheaper house because more often than not, the more expensive house does not fit in their price range. From the 2000 US Census, which is a few years old, but still illustrates my point, for every$1,000 increase in the price of a new home, 2,000 potential home buyers are priced out of the market for that home. Rather than add new regulations onto an already stressful process, the MBA would prefer a discussion of incentives as the means to encouraged added amenities to projects done in Renton. At this time, what is being built is what the market is demanding, not only in Renton, but throughout King County. ''�'" I thank you for your consideration and am here if you have any questions. Thank you. Garrett J. Huffman Garrett J. Huffman *4410 South King County Manager Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish counties 335 116th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (425)460-8236 (206) 605-8877 ghuffman@mbaks.com www.masterbuildersinfo.com CC: Bonnie Walton ................m.......w .. \\'h ; Art,-..: the 8,1,;(4-1,,et-s ii Creacr ! 1:a ( aa Ct Afronl a Mccii:zta- l'i-i4:.. j 1. 14';,0,4:`,' 440.0, i 1,-P. \;', ::•.}:'4-:','i,,:i i .11-“,.'2,illi 'l "seC,iit.,. I ),..f.L.:t :1 `,,V's '..1•V.4; '..''. '',. l':I !!!).-11' ",,.,,Ij12 Li';::,..`1,.'-, : )1 !,Of) IIT,; ElY11.7.-I,'T f.1,),1,1'/.....(_,:i•'4-11:.`,d;,',K...,: _ _ ; Et.:4,:nat.od.Aoln5nistrator"; ;-;re•-.-:choo ac Chi,c1::: re c.cnt;::';-/Progranl ;„.., ,-;,.-; f:;:; i,s.': 4.',t,', =',i'i,/-`, ;,-d,;A L, ,,",,;:•-dii.'Ark.",:/Nt:: :.-21"ii•DIVt. .4tahr3 -.11:-... L,L.......:. -:-., , !',, :, .2.',,),.,'S ...." .:-iliStS FC:- :r(-?;3sinci A,;454,d aro f-r: ;./ers Fm Pre&c:s_. ;;ihelesate_, anc Ro-ar E....,yets, Ex.cept Farm Produoic P._•-ot3as!;ng Agen-r, 1...',--.;•;.-.: ile. Retaii. an•oi t::-• -2- !9r.-_,:•_•::ts C arY;s_,Aditte;rs ET.,•dr•-- de;s. a;-di irvestlgato s , . lusurance Aop;aisen.s. 4 tArs Ar,:ents ancB-SIF,7:',1,;. M:a-,age-s :,f Artis.ts Pe;Idd--d- , ata.1,!2;;.tidetes ;; .,-,,, ;„ ••• (3,orripham-:e Cti' ;„e ,.. '7:.,:;ep- rtAgrdiAhre. Cyr y•tr:-..-In Healtn •'N S...afet' arc i•rts• --.;:--;rtdr .- ...... ''.•,3 30Se 1...7..St'inatCr:. :- ,--Arip;;.:y-1•1E,t--,!- i.--,",-2. :;.: f.- , ' :,3'-:,.! !' .--,1. 7..---e''. 5.,re--,,1: --,t . „. ::,:.,Y!;;E,:-:;- SLit -cr '.-5'..'"F',.,:'t,, -,r,C,1 ..1t„ .411.,3),JS.1:SSp'..,1;!a: ,-,:': . ... . . , eiiir, 19,,...3-s.,),.,--.t7;-, :::L,•: , t,) arta :.and; `r- ei..atns fii..,,,a...a Ists tyleaat.•; -. -,,,-;:, ''.... c: Pi"3-1,-1,-,:= 3CC, :3'1:', -2'.:n:...1 .1, ..":!: A0pra!SE:IS and. 4 c3se;';:s-;;-:-.;rt -.-it f-te-ot:,:ti.:-Jto B4dget AlaList5 limo° Statishrdaos Mathehhatii.a 1 7-cc;'man:. Mathenrcr:h:_ai ',2--..dlt,-•:::'15n..ts ,T;;;; Cit,h,•-_.- it.,„ :::,/,!;!,:siac-ii,,,.-,•i-_,T ,....,c ..:,,t ;.:iivoi.-_;:';,,;,d,:t (.,'"Cfid•-•',n."1:;:..rnit,-::, L andsoape Acor,Itt.to'.d ':.--);: o- •; C.,.:;,rtograpreds Sc : Pt;;:,-3,-.'d an rn_et;Ists ., _ St,r;,eyprs_ Cder,ncal Enneers r.: : .1;.;%3 Materiais Engmeers ; Architecturai and Cro; E.:; after5 42 427 ' 1./FE. PI-1YS!'.'..-A L A Nri:'. Si....:;DAI. S!'.:II::NC c..: (C, O.L12., ''I0 I V S t;:il.crotdologiSTS ,.)::: ' LOc:)!GgiStS and Mir:rice BI;s1r)grstr, dsts ,-- ; (.o.i,e r---: ;:ore,sterr, -.7 Ma:.enais '3;..;entisis 6..:;,., ronr-ent.al Soce4t,sts anc Spe.c!ai•sts. inclJelng ni,-,,a;th ';',4 O5re,.'. COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES OCCUPA 7 IONS .__ - 1 Substance Abuse and Behavioral Disorder Counselors 34 403 Educational Vocatio-lai ano School Counse:ors Marriage and Fanily Therapists C, Mental Health Counselors 4n 2';.:1:18 -- -I 400are Rehabdtat 7.,'-'• Counse!ois 3' 6%1 .„ ....- .. . Counselors Al- Other 39203 . Crwd. Fan-41y_ and SchoolSocial Workers 101111111111111111.11Milliftli Pie:air:a and Puodc Health Social V\iorkeri -ifia,C35; . .„ . „.... ... „ . . Mrar-tai Health and Suostance Abuse Soctiai VVorkeis A-, scio) . ... „ "--..t-ic,ai '.7ifori,ers, Ail Other 4 234 ‘4409 Hittaito Fducatots ,otiorti -itices ara f,-arectiati, i isiati-,,iin- ; .:,3-2- iia -ir6eraice Assrstray, y a.rd Social Sery ce Son,,,aiists Ai: t1h ei -'.(,I.7 4: icHaus Workers A:I Other ,4c.i 21 !..E 217 0,2 it.:,111-pA TIONS • .:Arhitratues, Med ators and Conchatsts - 3,,,s5..,2 . _ . Paralegals nndLeAgai Ass stants 2 301 i rAi,ic CES Abstractors. arc S. '''f t:'`, 4:2 ;772 -d S ,:fy-,,r, ':V- :kers Ali Otht,f . 4;• -6- c.,,:,,,::•:..1 z-;ON ;:i RA INiqVG. A Alif, :.s'i:,,As---ir ;A• i.,-.,.-"; , 1, :, Coirini_,:er Sraence Teacoers, Prist.ceitk,ria..Ary ,., . ,,, Psy.rhology Teachers F--tostseconaany :::, 555 Eccia: 'Sciences Teachers Pct,stsecciA23-:,-- A i ly,h,,,r -::,r) 144 : Art ID ana_ and Music Teachers P4:,::;I:.-,e4:..4.Y,--..:.:3:',4_ , r1,-,-i-nr-iEnicaticns Teachers Pm- -sae; ; •55,- 222 Eitir.jiisr Language and blerat[id t eacners. Hr.ititccii: 5 il,- ,i;:,,4 [icie-oc Language and 144eriatcre 7)a. oars Postssc, i.diy H S:',:,'',, Teac h e rs Pestseconnaty Riad on leacne-t: Hcritt,e-tar.onhr Hcrirr, iornics leachers i-ese,„ —h-s-as; -i-EdAtation or: F- tness SitiAieis ;r.,--;,:rai,rss-- -isttiri,.- i --,J,- ---!„-t vccancinal Edication :Teachers. Pissiseton(Jar- ...,-:: -2,7 8%10 :-:3. bESIGN EtiTERTAiNPOCNI 551,21P I'S A ryr• i!!::.;::4 ..i1 Tir7,-,;:,. , F 1,?Artists Inciudirg Painters Scnio-sdrs. aiti i! Na ''-, .4....-i ':.J4-.: b-Mecra Arnsts and Arimators D,:., A-lists and Related Vijorkers, Al: Other ...,. , hasaActi oes[gners -18.809 cm' Desione-s 'En-aphic Derri9ners — itied 4..A.-„,...,s ...._ . Hi:erica-Desiitmers Merchandise [Displayers and siV,nde,,, Trinirreni, ; 32 162 ,7)!, ana E;v-abit. Designers Arr.ii 34 cnes and Scouts 67 :7 .:ieC9raWerS K 77) : HEAL 771-4,04.5E PRA C Ti liONERS AND fletitians a-d Nutritionists 7: rristr i . ... . ......... . .. . • -3'.'err..; I\JUI4s , ,':,.:' ',-,;30 7 _ _. . .,...„,...„.__ . , 4 o‘ezjisis .3 i.730 .. Occapationa Therapists; _ _ ; 5 „. Hhysicai;Therapists .... 32 , 78 .... • - . .51:7441 THCARE SUPPORT OCCUPA DONS. -tame Hide ea!th As 22 2'.:,r, . „ _ __, NVSirl Aides Orderlies, and Attendants . 26 126_ ; ; ... „ Psychiatric Aides 31.117 _EA OcaupatienalTherapisit Assistants 38298 .. „2„....„_.,. Occupational Therap,st Aides 26.129 . _ „. .., .. . . : Pnysical Therapist AssistantF, 36 961 sviiiI01 P 7 5,TE-j:fTr-ao ct P.des 25.724 .. ._. _ ... _ Massage 7rierao,sts rrt Ass,stan:s * e Mied,ca' Assistants Miedlco: ',"iaascdr.WOr Ass.suari8-- are :,ar.r,iei3n,_ 25- '18 „.„ ec34rii-1,--are Support Vnrors„A C.:her C VE SEROC IL: -O.C. PA Ti 0 f'IS i--rs:-Lane Supervisors/Managers of CoPeenona! ! 85 812 Superiasers/Menagers Protechve 8erv23e 48 05t hiP rs 52 42.1: ,nkoc:,anal Oft.cers ana 43 0:4 r4 Sherdf's 59 233 Ca to. 'Verice-si 43 52'6 . -4e Detect-ves_af c! 47 i Guards 30 343 LA.g52./cts Sic. Patro erio Other ,;Rocreational co.i/- 3 li‘r• ,11c-k^"fS 20 542 „ 00 Seisase Woricer 36 02-1 //1.1CD PR EP ARA T ION AND S E VN3-1: L A 7 T'I "2,c'zrs arid Heat Cooks 4.4 002 v.-bee Supervisors/Marage. s.df 03o 5rena89a. r.(2, 39835 .„, i-'as t Fa ,3 ' 750 13-8_23- rstitt.it:din efeto'ra 65,1-, 'Fiestauraut 24 Short ordir-iii- *kW .,kif Other 5E'-4 Pretoarat:or 11\lork,ers 2 530 2' 113 as ' 30Food P-eparation and Servm,rj Wackert., Fast Foca 19 170 ter Attendants, Cafeteria F000 Concession and 3/..tiFee SPO;) Ala ter and NAfatresses „... Setvers, Nonrestaoi ant 19,599 7 79: ;nJ trostessas Lou' s P.eoaratior ado Re aled 0i-re 30 238'i/Ni3 AND GROUNDS 6.21.1-34Nifilt..3 4.ND it1,43N3 t27'..P4Nr.:1,3 t3,30',?7°,4. i"if.,411S ie Supervisorerllanagers of Housek,./.:ei_4rgano „ianItonal Workers 39.435 ct L'no Supeivisors./Ma..agors of Landscaping, Sc''cace, and /311;-ci-ndskieopli-ig4 ' 930 ivry-ker s Jidritors endCleaners. Pxcep t Ma!sis and Ho„seikeenino C!c2Eni:,;5 25 57'0 r'.121ds and Hot.seiceepinc;Clearers 20 340 - - CO,trUi ar,dscapirg add Grountiskeep,r'j ihionce-s Pestk3fce Handlers Sprayers. and App;irrators 264 Maintenance 7,/orker0, A, Other 5',825 PERSONAL CARE AND SERVICE Or'CUPLITIONS Gaming Supervisors First-Lr-Pe SuperviscrsiManagers o'Personal Service VVorkers 42 396 Trainers 20,737 Nonfarm Anima; Caretakers 23 228 Gatnina Dealers 18,900 Ga—inr2, Service '31-„d1rers Al:. Other 20,024 and 1atie7r". svaio. biantt, ; 1:6 76:tei•,nt .rt , `"1.•in Atteirtlanis ; Frine!a.:6t.ftitt• ; „; ;_ 01.9roe-s I tai ars'. Cot:, riititoldgists 9,9:24 Munin,,rists • ; intrbt•a: 20 i3i18 , Sire:.Caro 1-iiirii,pt•a 3:2 gr-ture ; ta7:7,Aiis k7t:.3 7•,;•,-irbitbs ;;, ket9;173ale:spe•rt.,..„,-: Adyernsini, iTravei Adea ba n'eis•-es•te i Other • S- y, ..'Itie•trks-a,tia arc Manufactul ":! S • ieti-nat•1:6-",-rbt -26; rP"; A NI2.1 : I r I r1rr• ()CC in:a:4_1_1;7E arid 26 t'rjSJ --ritbr-,•rators Aii Olr ni•J and Post:niLt :arks are! i",,,5trtni Cperatt_irs kke..?;-..,-nCj ft : '71 C,Iitairtts ..,„ Cnrrescondenbe ( rtMancrpa acid 1..:crsr-i'itb Ci(nrks Creclift C'-2cketta. and 34, aistomer Serivine H pieSertatives "Scinernrinent Propr•ains CIPrks kltit! il,:fpaewers, itbetat:iiar, • 17:31,7iftliNG, F S i . TR Y Line a .tr•tr-s of Parritir7: 17:-.-,ciri , and Pi-in-an:1:y Workers A911C,,..jtJra': Inspectors 40 109 6.3raders and Sorters Njnoul.ti_ral Products r9 557 Parrnworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery and G'eenhouse 2783 Farmworkers, Farm and Ranch Anima's: . 20 913 k1"CUItUral‘VVorkers, AH Other . Loggincj Equiprren: Operators 40 439 cu Graders ace Scalers 41 052 • . .. . . . . ,750NS.TP!..„li3TION 4Nr,5,:r lt:X IRAC IION O :t..:PAI-Vs-,-,::', S(2,riS eiriC -,n,a. -151',.: d Clinci aro; O.atafat. na ' r:Pel s ar Other Corrtict.an Edu!arY.en: C21.-na F -4,—: aros . _ irpoPistr..-3 ..;arasiinsas, j;anti si5li' -- f 5:;ers. a.sasat-uoticr: Lirrs ! Matis'er.r.f.rrIce .-::: rfi,3; 5... . 17;E.:OA C- Mec.ri 6 n,cs instia,lers ani-j ''-.,:-.',..3:•'''.:Y,H •--, •:.,., Ai„.tis'ona.lsc ,er tr;r:d Offide Machine Reparers__ tsars Exser-: r.aar.; , .7.,,,-,., [tip -inr.i .i:R.,..i-iiatd r;-...ep,--;,ileis ..--::(‘:''.' Co'nircial a5r: ;cid Astr o. saar-cioccs. i.1 ri-,er-;- !----,,,,ia;,;=. :, ,„ i',,:, ;;',':;‹ep a is 7ns M k.,.t:' i,...."i 1 i, '441100. ' , ,,.:7 '- t i,,;:r;;;,.= 11-,pt.,-;1',,,,.nt;),,,,,nt C.---,-1 J ;,"--)c---,i1,:_!,-,,,,:,:::3.-:-,•'S.. ,-i Li P.epuir-rac, 5.e. .;; ;,,, ai,.: "4te Alar-r- :-...i,terriplisstai!e!'s; ; '_: ,34:7 Peialec kc;.-3 t-ers ; ans."7,73evir... ?„. 7e;i , ‘..,',3` S 71 oysik ',./1 _:nar:ncs and Diesel Engine Sec-; s . _ -3;."-; LT, pr.-I-fent Mecinarac.s. Excep,, Lr-9 ,p,,.., 4.1:: `,.-'-7;',...• Mcsarnoat Motor:ea,:„h.s., Meuisa'wts. . .... (.5,;„,rdip5i-rrc,,ver Ectr;unterit and Otr;er Sinak Er-,9'ne r-dochartir.s . iC7170.t.' .5)GGi,../F-',4 1 1ufi.i.:S7 - Fors,r pne SL:pedirsdirsir,:lor age's o'f Product:lc-, ..3r-mit0-uanitim'ja5;loiater:. Fi-nsnittp- . '5; ;7,;„:4 , F ledn ca: and Electrornp, i3q:Kirnent Asseiabled:» 3-: inns; cran;cal Edwpment Assenlb us 35.-"51, ; - - Metal Fabricators.; and Fitters _ 35: 5:0;1 _am nato:s arid Fah,- fearnAs-seinb!ers ' ASSerr,t-;-erS air1 Sour catra-s Al. Otner e,, . .„ .... ._ Butcners and Meat Cutters Meal Poultry and Fish Cutters arldTOrnplers -a- ,..p.51 SlaL,ghterers and Meat P;r1ICKerS .._ Foon and Tobacco Rc.)astinr.,;. Baking and Dryingpachrie Operato's. an.. !enders ;),,,;,:i 7')'4 ,....: ',..,-) i F cu Batchrnakers _ 30 362 ....„. .. . *4lIew ' fjood Cook.ng Machine Operators and Tende'sz_, :,...',. _ .... „ . .. ._ Co—pJter-Controlied Manure Tool 'Ocerators„ Mf-t-,,tai arc Piastic 4' 345 MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIE * _ . „ .. .. . .3 N...:me'lcal, Too; .3-1:7 P:oc,es Contro! Hf',,,,,inga;)::i Dra.v.10 Machne ;7:;F, a- '24-.c-:., :-,, ;:';J .'ei•cle'5, M - ai afl,.:} Hi;--:-.' •' 3 r..-i %lane,, '3,a,:ter s '.7.. at,:..7, ..--,-0-;,:,. T,:-.r ,;....;-, '...,.... .; - ;-..' 1.:•;. :...,,-.73_, 3E.';38 . '44IS" . „ ,,,,,,;pc-ir. •ri:•.,T;•;:-.,,..1 AN:-. 1,,,-,.;',"2.;,,r,. :. ;0-7.;•:.:3 ".•• ,; . -,.' ', f...;,,•-,;:-:: . ...1;.;:.;-.. ,,a-nr...,..;-ance: Dr',;-e-•.,.. a•-;;:-.; !,•,....;a:1;-...:.i.-tr... r...:.—;.Tr. ; ,,,.,, . ,..; \ : i.,-..a Bt.!•=., Drwevs. So-lw.-. 32 4': • es VVorkers . 3-, ...--. i .13r:ve.riSa, 2..,.. . , .) Tri..:-•;.-. 12r;vers Heavy'and -1;:i..h.-i'Eak 7 l• ..7, r7river . C -:J or 1)ei;ve, •-7--•:-,2 , --2e.:, ..:7-1-:, - -- --- Dri Dyers aa C.rauff;,-..ars 75 H1 . „ . . ---,7or Vehr;;;e, Opera'.orF.-.. .kd .3,4,....--, 25 547 3•7i ;.-ys anc' Manre Oilers 47 -.•,-: ; 3 ..,:y.:..;.-1 , Mat..-...-.; :-.• A f..3 .--..*,„ ' ;,-. : - '.3 3,-. E."..,4 .374 EnTneers 8;:•': -2,...1.:je anc LooK. "ree;cier :-..1.1.1.,.I'A; LOt ikt:enciants •Jf ‘',-;."-•.,`;•.: '4141110° Killogilifin B efichillar . a t < f / d f / ► / / t i Affordable Housing Not Available for Many King County Households The factors that influence affordable housing have aligned to produce a discouraging outlook for a significant k number of the county's households. While the home ownership rate in King County has increased since 1990,the percent of owner households paying more than 30%of their income toward housing has also grown. Likewise, nearly one-half of renter households pay more than they can afford for housing, a notable increase since 1990. This signals a worrying trend in housing and is the focus of this bulletin. Rental Affordability. More than four out of five rental households earning less than half of median income do not have affordable housing in King County, paying more than 30%of their income toward housing. Consequently, these households must divert their resources from other necessities such as food and healthcare, and are at greater risk of homelessness. What's Inside The proportion of King County households earning less than half of median income rose over the last decade, as highlighted in The Supply of Affordable Rental Housing is the 2006 Economic Development bulletin. Should this trend insufficient with a deficit of affordable housing for nearly 69,000 households earning less than$24,300 continue without a corresponding increase in low-income rental (Indicator 21,page 3). housing,even more households will be burdened by high housing costs. One-half of renters and one-third of owner households pay more than 30%of Income for Housing Costs (indicator 22.page 4). Changes in rental housing suggest that this is already happening. It is estimated that 24,000 people in King County Apartment vacancy rates declined in 2005,signaling increased will experience an episode of Homelessness in demand for rentals and portending higher rents. In fact,average the course of a year(Indicator 23,page 5). rent did increase in 2005 after relative stability the previous three The Home Purchase Affordability Gap for 'nt years. median-income households grows to 46%in 2005 (Indicator 24,page 6). 11.1111111. , Home Ownership Opportunities. Following several years of At 61%,the Home Ownership Rate in King County economic growth in the late 1990's,the early years of this decade lags behind other metropolitan areas nationwide 0 (Indicator 25.page 7). saw a regionwide recession that slowed income gains. Still, Q. demand for housing remained strong,and although low interest For the first time since 2002, the Apartment ratesprovided homebuyers withgreater purchasingpower,the Vacancy Rate has dipped below 6%(Indicator 26, ' ' Y page 8). market responded with increased home prices. Consequently, the gap widened between what typical households could afford The Trend of Housing Costs in Relation to income continued in 2005,as the median home and what typical homes cost, making home ownership less price increased nearly 15%from the previous year affordable for many King County households. while median income rose less than 1%(Indicator 27,page 9). CC In 2005,the home purchase affordability gap for a median-priced Public Dollars Spent for Low Income CU home more than doubled what it was only two years prior. Only Housing increased in 2005 as King County jurisdictions dedicated $18.6 million to create, _ one in 10 single-family home sales in the county were affordable preserve or repair over 1.000 affordable housing units to the median income household. However,homebuyers found (Indicator 28,page 10). more affordable alternatives in the condominium market;over half Most Housing Units Affordable to Low- F.,4 � of all condo sales were affordable to the typical KingCounty Income Households are concentrated in south household in 2005. Condominiums also provided an affordable county cities,including over 40%of the apartments home ownership option for moderate income households with affordable to households that earn half of median nearly one-third of the 2005 condo sales being affordable to those income (Indicator 29,page 12). households. � z� Metropolitan King Count)r + tt ' icF� arkrr Countywide Planniny Policy Rationale riar".1 plc niv'111o6nq'o'affordable hous11ng should use the medlar,I ousel 'u'•.r CU:Ai l:y lnoexeed by ncjserroiu 31ze puD-Is 15.;arlr,.2.ly by the U S.Department of Housing and Urban Development ti I u of afferdahie h r.se prices si auia assn, .: star lam Fels,al Housing Ariminlstratlon lending criteria and m-l':i :.;cl do.a p_;ymen;.; 200 c m t � t`I � E' Lev l @ S Percent sof Y�.,. ; One Person Two Perms HOusabohi Three Person Four,F"erso 1ffediair . Annual Income $ 15,200 $ 17,300 $ 18,200 $ 19,500 $ 21,700 0 o Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 317 $ 360 $ 379 $ 406 $ 452 30% Payment Affordable Rent $ 380 $ 433 $ 455 $ 488 $ 543 Affordable Home Price $ 57,100 $ 65,000 $ 68,400 $ 73,300 $ 81,500 Annual Income $ 20,200 $ 23,100 $ 24,300 $ 26,000 $ 28,900 Payment Affordable Monthly Hsg 40% $ 421 $ 481 $ 506 $ 542 $ 602 Affordable Rent $ 505 $ 578 $ 608 $ 650 $ 723 Affordable Home Price $ 75,900 $ 86,800 $ 91,300 $ 97,700 $ 108,600 Annual Income $ 25,300 $ 28,900 $ 30,400 $ 32,500 $ 36,100 Payment Affordable Monthly Hsg 50% $ 527 $ 602 $ 633 $ 677 $ 752 Affordable Rent $ 633 $ 723 $ 760 $ 813 $ 903 Affordable Home Price $ 95,100 $ 108,600 $ 114,200 $ 122,100 $ 135,700 Annual Income $ 30,400 $ 34,700 $ 36,400 $ 39,000 $ 43,400 Affordable Monthly Hsg 60% Payment $ 633 $ 723 $ 758 $ 813 $ 904 Affordable Rent $ 760 $ 868 $ 910 $ 975 $ 1,085 Affordable Home Price $ 114,200 $ 130,400 $ 136,800 $ 146,600 $ 163,100 Annual Income $ 40,500 $ 46,200 $ 48,600 $ 52,000 $ 57,800 Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 80% 844 $ 963 $ 1,013 $ 1,083 $ 1,204 Affordable Rent $ 1,013 $ 1,155 $ 1,215 $ 1,300 $ 1,445 Affordable Home Price $ 152,200 $ 173,600 $ 182,600 $ 195,400 $ 217,200 Annual Income $ 50,600 $ 57,800 $ 60,700 $ 65,000 $ 72,250 o Payment Affordable Monthly Hsg 100% $ 1,054 $ 1,204 $ 1,265 $ 1,354 $ 1,505 Affordable Rent $ 1,265 $ 1,445 $ 1,518 $ 1,625 $ 1,806 Affordable Home Price $ 190,100 $ 217,200 $ 228,100 $ 244,300 $ 271,500 Annual Income $ 60,700 $ 69,400 $ 72,800 $ 78,000 $ 86,700 Affordable Monthly Hsg 120% Payment $ 1,265 $ 1,446 $ 1,517 $ 1,625 $ 1,806 Affordable Rent $ 1,518 $ 1,735 $ 1,820 $ 1,950 $ 2,168 Affordable Home Price $ 228,100 $ 260,800 $ 273,600 $ 293,100 $ 325,800 For the affordable home price this table uses a 5% down payment on a 30-year mortgage at 5.75% interest (estimate). This tabl- calculates household incomes by household size and percent of median income based on HUD data HUD calculated 2005 media household income(for a four person household)of the Seattle-Bellevue area to be $72,250, as shown above. This table includes an income category for a 2.4 person household,which more closely identifies the average household size in King County. 2 • December 2006:-,Affordable Housin . upp(y and Demand for Affordable erirc! I o.sr,:g:, O',1rF'OMF: r ?e'1 'Jt SUFFICIENT AFFOkbABLF. HoUS N CJk i__ i, f•:.. C( i i„ ",> t r iS:t Ei•." Countywide Planning Policy Rationale _ p } All lurlso:ct!ons Por for housing to meet the needs of al economic segments of the poo_,latiorr' ' v; ', a:;h It;nsdiction shall participate in Jevelnpi'i; 'dountyw'de housing resourirez ar,e ;)rograms t0 ssist the I' o 'iur'l'.s'r i 1J`w .3I' mou rst -I cor'e- hou eh,lc. , - . rot 'rsv afforiable apt,rr,r aausln` e hE .:�,} „ s:> dr r.-'J r .�urrt:.tt trey `rahich concentrar., hu,sing opportunities in rid ;'or, OLA I iunsdictio,a In•Ov.',(''; no isin.r development and so vu'es ' 0_int ,✓ 1 m`u'k sir diu give :-),,, to r s=tr r I?vt,s:-h-.,Ic t: uCi mr ' :34Yli, of rnediao-'r .c'un:. irc0 <^,re in greatest reed and ntn' ' fn's with tigr proportions ot Iov,;;tr-1 .ou.;o'ii- it.a:''a rtes l its ;A; iII 0; t<;,r,.-1 ,o,anty;'r,,i annually on hoi�si''�g dew-op nt-nt the tate')i'; _'s'r r�ro.,r u�,. . ct ,.:' '�10i ;le I carac t ;:Jun`ywi.IL. (AH 4; With a vacancy rate of about 6%in 2005,King County's 307,000 rental units provide a sufficient amount of housing for its 290,000 rental households. However, rental housing is not necessarily affordable to all renters. There are only 30,730 units affordable to the 99,500 renter households earning 40%of median household income or less, resulting in no affordable rental housing for two-thirds of these households. A household in this income group earns $25,000 or less,and can afford no more than$625 for rent. Figure 21.1 t !up I- [ -aematnd forAffordable- The deficit in affordable rental housing is partially + r compensated by subsidized housing in King Number of Cumulative County. Subsidized units are available through Percent of Number of Rental Deficit or Section 8 rental vouchers, public housing Median Rental Units to Households in Surplus of developments, or public/private projects that Income of HH Income Group Supply to guarantee that a portion of their units will be Income Group Demand affordable at below-market rents. <30% 310 73,700 (73,390) 30-40% 30,730 25,800 68,460 40-50% 111,860 23,800 19,600 Close to 40%of King County's rental households- 50-60% 74,060 22,800 70,860 more than 100,000 renters-earn above 80%of 60-80% 69,760 39,600 101,020 median household income. As illustrated in figure >80% 20,590 104,200 17,410 21.2,almost 84,000 of these households occupy � �d � " 3 44ft rental units that would be affordable to lower QQ �� -' income levels, which decreases the supply of *Estimated rental units represent market rate units and does not include housing that is actually available to the lower units subsidized by federal, state and local funding. income households. Figure 21.2 King County Rental Housing Supply and Demand (2006) 160,000 Rental Housing Supply: #Rental units Affordable to Each Income Category Rental Housing Demand: #Renter Households in Each Income Category 140,000 c120,000 111,860 m 100,000 104,200 74,060 o 80,000 1 73,700 69,760 d 60,000 a) 40,000 30,73039,600 20,000 7i 22,800 20,590 310 25,800 23,800 *Irre <30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-80% >80% Income Category in Percent of Median Household Income 3 ar Irir eitor • 1 22 Metropolit ` ` Countywide l l tnnin l Policies enchnr lr rsgre Pert :.? : i Ltd ,o "ie_ Puid for t etAri:ofle SuFFIci.e ,r7 Ho( Y& For,. ALL .,u:?tywicito Planning Policy Rationale 'All Jijnsic:;tions sfia.l pr;vide for a diver-soy ,f nc,us.i g types to meal a variety of needs and provide hei.Js.nt} opportr,r,;,,:= fo' eel er.ononrc segmeris_ of:he population Al;ores i,t:1,oe:, al-n.I cooperatively establish a process to ensure ar? equitaole and rati,!nal d:stribetioyi of low-income,and affordable ho:-.. .r"irc,rata:,ut;ne County. "(FW 28) -the Grevdn M anagei tient Plan,?in,j( i ci c5ha'I oeric:ite a-;I,level-?ant of Countywide coo ler housing for all economic segments of f'ie population [It" shall consider fuol reports prwi,arrn .ender policy H t e' rort_ii`.ioins ann other tactor; afferring 11ot:sing doveepmni. f+tie E of th Management Hanning Council et._n" c_._ i n^us"ng planned for any econon?.c scgmenr ral s shoe of need e seen a is nr Cn avth I;1::r?aq rr nl ?nat riiii a nrr,00d ar:rinli'o,l a^}n e Figure 22.1 Proportion of Income Dedicated to Housing According to the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Costs: Renter and Owner Households (2005) Development,30%of gross income is the maximum that all but wealthy households can pay in housing costs ® Renters 0 Renters without creating an excessive housing cost burden.This paying paying threshold is a measure of housing affordability; housing more than less than that requires more than 30%of income is considered to 30% e4 .:14, 30%of be"unaffordable." Income on Income on Housing 14 Housing In 2005, over 280,000 of King County's 746,000 households paid more than 30% of their income for ® Owners housing,representing 38%of all King County households. ® Owners e paying Nearly half of these households were renters, despite paying less than the fact that renters represent less than 40%of all County more than 30%of households. 30%of Income on Income on Housing Housing Renters About half of all renter households in King County paid over 30%of their income for housing.Those Figure 22 2 renter households in lower income categories were more likely to pay a higher percentage of their income for Percent of Households Paying More than 30% housing.In fact,four out of five renter households earning of Income for Housing Costs: 1990-2005 below 60%of median income in King County paid more than 30% of their income for housing. Of all renter 50% , 47% households that paid more than 30%of their income for 39% 40% 38% housing, more than 97% earned less than the median 40% 1 ►7% 270 30/, 33% income for King County. 30% 0 .N 20% 18 a Owners One-third of all owner households in King County 10% IRO paid over 30% of their income for housing in 2005. Of 0% those households,about 60%earned less than median 1990 2000 2005 household income. Owners 0 Renters MAII Households Nerd 4 lemommoirommiumnimma Indicator December 2006 Affordable Housing ." . . 23 1Countywide Plamf,ng Policy Rationale i .)'c ityviioe programs shcc,ld p'uvide the fol,owing types of l.,_.ns ng, eno related services;, Low irluonie nousing devei pili,r.°. I sooriinc ne:v construction acquisition and rehabilitat,un N•,. :ir,9 assistance, such as rentai voi.,chain and supportive service; A;sislance to expand the capacity of nonprofit organization, I, develop housing provide.; housing related services, 4' Program,' to 3 t nm to i., sist homeless iiiciividuals and families 5) Prngiams t: f,i_-.,� ni do nelessress. and r�; .4,ss,star:uu to low and five's ,;/H _'A; Between 2000 and 2004, the estimated homeless Figure 23.1 population in King County increased nearly 30%, ten times the rate of population growth experienced by � e fi�it� 'ai t0Oxcent of Homo the County as a whole. Estimates suggest that over Pens 8,300 people in King County are homeless on a typical night in 2004,or about 0.47%of the County population. 2000 2002 2004 2006 According to the Committee to End Homelessness in King County, 24,000 people in King County will Street Count 1,085 2,040 2,216 1,946 experience an episode of homelessness in the course Sheltered of a ear. 4,500 4,675 4,636 5,964 Y Homeless Estimated Uncounted 915 1,265 1,484 na The Seattle-King County One Night Count(ONC)is a tally of unsheltered persons and a survey of the Total 6,500 7,980 8,336 na sheltered homeless community. In January 2006,ONCr FAI.:0144, E counted 1,946 persons on the street and surveyed g another 5,964 in emergency and transitional housing. About 83%of the 1,946 unsheltered homeless persons were in Seattle. Of the 5,964 sheltered homeless persons, 41%were in emergency shelters with the remainder in transitional housing. Of those surveyed, 36%were single men and another 48% were individuals in families with children. Almost one-third of the homeless sheltered persons were children under the age of 18. The majority of homeless persons in King County have Figure 23.2 some source of income, with 16% of the population Origin of Homeless Households in King surveyed by ONC earning income through employment. County's Emergency Shelters and There is a large deficit of affordable rental housing for Transitional Programs(2006) households earning less than 30%of median income. In 2006, a household earning$18,200(30%of median income) can afford no more than $455 per month in rent. In a survey of 24 U.S.cities in 2005,The United States South King Seattle,53% Conference of Mayors-Sodexho, Inc identified the lack County,13% North King of affordable housing as the leading cause of County,5% homelessness in America. Other causes included (in East King order of frequency cited by surveyed cities)low-paying County,6% jobs, mental illness and the lack of needed services, substance abuse and the lack of needed services, domestic violence,unemployment,poverty and prisoner re-entry. 5 1 24 j Meirapolitan King Ca my Countywl401 O gltcies ii chmar€ ' Home Purchase Affordebiiry r c C'.'TcomE: PpomorE FFOIRCA6LE HOME OWNEPSHTE PP0.2?.-P.4 i '•.", ( Countywide Planning Policy Rations in r�,':cr.eg 'ne shat Crow:n Area. each jurisdiction shall den cr1 ii ate its ability to ,,rx..'.nm'eet. .:t.atficient affordabledensities,naus'riginsis:,,r u ailg k'�onoir.e ;n, his „s tmpuiation I rr;;l acPuns may !ncl',de zoning 'a ndf fay suffcn it and p'er',`itting i rocedoi es as needed t0 riiccuiage Ei tiurdX71:== reviewing coves t01 r t�lnca(?.:IaC ring ii'or'e tL"i.i:' atic` providing opportunities for a raf1ac of hous.r7g y{Yes ;:tit:,l nS ac.._: Su:' dwelling units manufactured iDtn t, ano fogtoi care facilitc es GarfinOUS mo niS. Iuses aed tat. ::I1?yn. :JC'll`J do rsir J. ;AH"i) i Figure 24.1 The home purchase affordability gap is defined ti r 1 t(Gap as the gap between the price that a typical , y t )191'404 ye 6 household can afford to pay fora house and the • Home Price Affordability Gap median price of housing on the market. This Median Affordable Dollars Percentage indicator analyzes both the housing affordability 1970 $ 21,700 $ 26,900 $ (5,200) -19% gap for households earning median household 1980 $ 71,700 $ 46,600 $ 25,100 54% income and households earning 80%of median 1990 $ 140,100 $ 95,500 $ 44,600 47% household income(typical first-time buyers). 1970-1990 figures are based on U.S.Census Survey data 2000 $ 225,000 $ 171,000 $ 54,000 32% A strong housing market fueled by low interest 2001 $ 235,000 $ 184,300 $ 50,700 28% rates in the early years of this decade made home 2002 $ 249,000 $ 206,600 $ 42,400 21% ownership more affordable for the median-income 2003 $ 265,000 $ 228,600 $ 36,400 16% household in King County. Having remained 2004 $ 289,950 $ 233,300 $ 56,650 24% below 30%from 2001 to 2004,the affordability 2005 $ 332,000 $ 228,100 $ 103,900 46% gap jumped in 2005, reflective of levels also 2000-2005 figures are based on King County Recorder data displayed in previous decades(see Figure 24.1). Median Income Households. In 2005,the median home price in King County was$332,000,however the median- income household could only afford a$228,100 home,resulting in a$103,900 affordability gap. In order to purchase the median-priced home, a household would need an income of almost$88,400, which is 46% more than King County's actual 2005 median household income of$60,700. However, as shown in Figure 24.2, households earning median income could afford the median-priced condominium. As in previous years,condominiums appear to provide an affordable home ownership option for median income households. Figure 24.2 First-Time Buyer Households. $400,000 King County Home Purchase Affordability Gap With a household income of $350,000 T $48,600, the typical first-time $300,000 homebuyer, could afford to spend $250,000 - $182,600 for a home in 2005, { resulting in an affordability gap of $200,000 I zmM n , over 82% for these households. $150,000 "izz 4. 41A 10! it . N Neither median-pricedsin9 lefamil $100,000 SO. o N° ;. ; � a Y o ' - '�= `.°o o , homes nor condominiums were $50,000 g o iDO + -� ` affordable to these households. In $_ - s�-: O � µ^ O N i O h O r { fact, fewer than 11% of the home 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 sales in 2005 were affordable to Median Single Family Home Price households earning up to 80% of I i Median Condo Price median household income. Affordable Home Price for Median Income Household - Affordable Home Price for Household at 80%of Median Income 6 Lnd'cator December 200 Affordable Housing Countywide Planning Policy Rationale rio,l'd provide low-income housing(I valo ont inclodina Ilei".`:;U!m', .tI+S: "Itll}rl,and rehab litatl::ii H end moderate i!lcoine home +u,ly'evi 2/-..1 Figure 25.1 The rate of homeownership has been !e4MUCL- E " increasing appreciably throughout the United Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 States since 1990, reaching 69% in 2005. King County(overall) 63% 62% 59% 60% 61% Despite the national trend, King County has experienced a slower rate of increase.While Seattle I Bellevue I Everett 65% 64% 65% 63% 65% the homeownership rate in the western Metropolitan Area United States increased 6 percentage points to 64% in this time period, the ownership Washington State 67% 67% 62% 65% 68% rate in King County grew only 2 points to 61% Western United States 60% 60% 58% 61% 64% United States 63% 64% 64% 67% 69% Figure 25.2 +Iter King County Renter and Owner Households: Percent in Each Income Group(2005) The Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metropolitan area held 100% steady with a homeownership rate of 65%. Compared with the 75 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., the 80% homeownership rate for the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett area xa_ Owners ranks lower than the median of 68.5%in 2005. 60% 40% fig As shown in figure 27.2 the rate of homeownership increases as income increases. In 2005, two-thirds of 20% all ownerhouseholds in King County earn more than the tr median income. In contrast, about three-quarters of all 0% renter households earn less than the median income. In 01 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y o o fact, half of all renter households earn less than 60%of F O N G � C n N O O ,;, � " � PI � � �, ; �, median income. A Income Category(in thousands) (King County Growth Management Members Planning Council Members Larry Gosset, Councilmember, King County I Chair Tim Clark, Councilmember, City of Kent Larry Phillips, Councilmember, King County Ron Sims, King County Executive Bob Edwards,Commissioner,Port of Seattle John Resha, Councilmember, City of Redmond Eric Faison, Councilmember, City of Federal Way Pete von Reichbauer,Councilmember,King Executive Committee Reagan Dunn,Councilmember, King County County Richard Conlin, Councilmember, City of Terri Briere,Councilmember, City of Renton Peter Steinbrueck, Councilmembe, City of Seattle( Seattle Lucy Krakowiak,Councilmember, City of Bunen IGrant Degginger, Councilmember, City of Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle Bellevue Mark Cross, Councilmember, City of Sammamish Alternate Members Dow Constantine,Councilmember,King County Robert Sternoff, Councilmember, City of Kirkland Marlene Ciraulo,Commissioner, KC Fire District Jean Garber, Councilmember, City of John Chelminiak, Councilmember, City of Bothell #10. Newcastle Patrick Ewing, Councilmember, City of Bothell David Della Councilmember,Seattle; Phil Noble, 1Walt Canter, Commissioner, Cedar River Nancy Backus, Councilmember, City of Auburn Deputy Mayor, Bellevue Water 7 rdicct firI ' . MetropolitanKilt county. OuntyWide NanningNikaies:Betornatki-petveaKft 'unci£I i'.L;`i; it;... .CaFtd,- %t,::C „;,:- 1-Ci,rbc.. PROVIDE- t-f-FICfl i.= t1,-=it t't i,AB t- § i e. 1Nv FOP AL.i- K.I° . 2c i.):. i"`r` RE:,5..1. ::.,- Ccuntywide Planning Policy Rationale "T`,o d stribution of noising affordaolc to o :ii c1 moderate ince''.e households shat take,ntc nui siceri•rior the ne d to" cm/it-tit/ la tower'edge employment, access to trarisporrd'lon and numati services, and the adequacy at i Ilii;;Ti UH..!i'e 10 :i_fu'Ott (l':J S,h9 cte';n,pment avoid ever cor'ce',:ration of assisted housing,and ri rease housing opportunities and cit)vers for low al id in,it;-die ( income households ir communities throughout King County. Each Jurisdiction snail g.ve etmal consideration to bcc31 sl„i and Countywide housing needs' (AH-2)...HII tc;r;s::fictions shall monitor residential development within their Jurisdictions [lensing 1 prices and rents also sho,_!ld he reported K:n0 County shat report annually on housing dovelopii ear, -the rats of houseig"ti:st a!'u 1 price increases and available Yc'S ,1T:retia ra 1:coy Co, ritYVy'1-ie n"1-5i i._..,___._-- ----------) Figure 26.1 Vacancy Rate for King County Neighborhoods: 2005 Rental vacancy rates are influenced by the Madison/Leschi "' ••9�f 1 Ballardd '714,-'• 2.90%I i availability of housing stock,and measure the Queen Anne 3.85%I capacity to accommodate household demand. Cap Hill/Eastk -'.. .,:.4:--- 3.90%I A vacancy rate of 5%is generally regarded as Bellevue East ,_,. . 4.4o./.1 a normal market rate. Lower vacancy rates University / ,.45% Magnolia --=.--;;'`' 4.45%j suggest high demand for units and upward Mercer Island .-";-=''a°'°,- 4.50%I pressure on rents while higher vacancy rates Enumclaw =,,_." 4.80%I suggest capacity and downward Bellevue West I; 4.85%1 99 excess p Y North Seattle "`'= -" 4.90%1 pressure on rents. Greenlake/Wall '-.:..41-"` 4.90%I First Hill lc-."C"='' 5.05%] Redmond F- =`- ' 5.10% I As shown in figure 26.2,after a three-year period Central 5.30%I of relatively high rates, apartment vacancy in Bellth/DwninSe ':�-. 5.35%I **4111101 Bothell , ,"`'`. 5.60%I King County declined noticeably in 2005.The Juanita t--f'`-'`, 5.65%I chart also shows the correlation between the Factoria ._ : ., 5.75%1 vacancy rate and employment in King County; Rainier Valley '' .,.. - 5.80%I Woodin/Tothm ":',P):,'"-.g";. 5.95% I as the number of jobs increase, the vacancy Shoreline .X':' 6.00%I rate decreases. KC Median 8.40 (-. Waite Center :."'..A.,!-;4.-:',-"-,- 6.05%I WestSeatlle \ `''. 6.10%1 The vacancy rate differs by sub-region within Kent ' "=:" 6.30%1 Auburn "i ` , s.55%J the county.According to the survey,most South ` .5 I Kirkland .'- s i.. 6.65%I County neighborhoods displayed a higher Renton "3`'=° "- 6.95%I i vacancy rate than the county average of 6.0% Riverbn/Tukwil t'=.h:'" - ' 7.10%I in 2005.In contrast,most neighborhoods in the Federal Way '::.-=-4;:,40;5-,:-; ,;>,- 7.55%I Des Moines '- ' ""_I''' 7.75%I SeaShore area displayed lower vacancy rates Issaquah %id 7'::'.�' ' '= - 8.15% I than the county average. Burien zI-;^F'-• 8.20%I SeaTac ,a.;ct4' ; 9.05%1 Figure 26.2 10.0% Apartment Vacancy Rate vs. Change in Employment and Rental Cost 8.0/o n - 7.7% 7.5% 7.2% .-. l 6.0 io 6.0% - 5.0% ..._._. 4.7% 4.0°i 2.0% -I 2.8% 3.3% 0.0% 2 0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 '2QD3 g 20494"' 2005 -4.0% *IS —*--Vacancy Rate %Change in Employment %Change in Rent 8 frdfcc`ar December 2006 Affordable 27 Housing. t . . OUTCOME:f•�`; ['� �g�p' y�Trend � Ho._<.;;,-, Costs in Relation. to Income OU1COME• r�Pt_CMOTF rF pP;;;A Figure 27.1 y � _ "° ,� ®R# 1 °;t ,.', t te p ' • e ' £.. sF3 .J i ' .0 t s =' Annual Annual Median Percent Median Home Percent Annual Year Household Change in Price (SF and Change in Average Rent Percent Income Median Condo) Median Home (2 BR/1 BA) Change in Income Price Average Rent 1990 $ 36,200 $ 140,000 $ 537 2000 $ 53,200 3.9% $ 225,000 4.9% $ 784 3.9% 2001 $ 55,900 5.1% $ 235,000 4.4% $ 826 5.3% 2002 $ 58,000 3.8% $ 249,000 6.0% $ 838 1.5% 2003 $ 59,200 2.1% $ 265,000 6.4% $ 821 -2.0% 2004 $ 60,400 2.0% $ 289,950 9.4% $ 803 -2.3% 2005 $ 60,700 0.5% $ 332,000 14.5% $ 810 0.9% Home Ownership Costs. In 2005,the median-priced home in King County sold for$332,000,an increase of nearly 15%from the previous year. Since 2000 the median home price has increased nearly 50%while median household income increased only 17%,from$53,200 in 2000 to$60,700 in 2005. As the increase in home prices outpaces the rise in incomes, home ownership is becoming less affordable for King County residents. Home price increases have outpaced income growth since at least 1980, but the trend worsened when recession caused income growth to stall. Responding to a regionwide recession, income averaged only 2.7%annual growth from 2000 to 2005. During the same period however the median home price increased 8.1%per year. The median single family home price increased by an average of 8.5%while the median condominium home price averaged 6.2%annual growth. Rental Costs. Rents provided more affordable housing to King County residents,averaging 0.7%annual growth from 2000 to 2005. Since 1990,rents have averaged 2.8%annual growth,while income has averaged 3.5%annual growth. With a median rent of$810 in 2005,a 2 BR/1 BA apartment in King County was affordable to a household earning about$32,500 per year--or 54%of median household income. As income growth has outpaced rental cost increases, the same apartment would have been affordable to a household earning 59% of median household income in 1990. Figure 27.2 Average Annual Change in Household Income, Home Price and Rent: 1990-2005 10.0%- 8.1% o, 8.0% 5.9% V 6.0%- 4.9% 3.9% -• 3.9% d 4.0% 7 2.7% 3.5% 0 4.0% '„ "m 2.8% • 0.7%, n. 2.0% } 1990-2000 2000-2005 1990-2005 ❑Median Income M Median Home Price M Median Rent 9 � 28 ..� �� � i ,"� Metropolitan iCing County aun r Pl � il x Benchmark ' � � + Public Dollars Spent fcr Lowr,ct i',c I iuusinc., 0,,1 .,--,,ME, PPOV1DE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION t.oN ',t" .fit',", .ii-:t-I i.- , "}'., r ii,,';M=,5 House,1,; Countywide Planning Policy Rationale -A.,ju,5scsx:t'r:ns shall share the responsibility for a ch+eying a rational and equitaD e d,s'i obidc c ol affordable housing to met the bc.us::,,;' " . c f and moderate-Income residcr.ts in King County The distriLiitron sr al. lit'..,,hi7' ,- r ach jurisoictions past and cur,: .: ,,�r1,. l,ru,1,c. , nicu r.j ,itordrlr;ie to ;ovt and modeiate-ii,cure -lute>,,i,11..,. .0r_ .= . ..,e.-int:aro:r or ess:sted housing ar:J i i'C,r°',i",-r:.o-ir-ng npportun,t,es and choices for low and moderate-income 0l,si: i ills t,aol I :r g„i;dost shat:participate,r;Maya;oLirg I t,,,n;Y-+ii;t.r'G'aS=r'g'E'SOiii Gc:S a"iG programs to assist the large ilUi?'1xr r;f icy,','a-rd n1Uu^.rli'e ir:C.nn1E:PIOUSf'h^:GS woo currently CG rt;:.', I,',,,;' -too--irih:e appropriate housing. These Countywide efforts „vill 'ielp eve se c0-i-a-it in rids Wtti.:h concentrate low-Incor,_, i .int sin„: a m@achieve itain communities. and a more equitable participalic.l by roca' ;.instil .b„ns r: love incoins hcusing. .Countvoic'' eboits s!- 'cl i give priority to assisting rcusenoras below 56-.X, of ireaman irl,:,ire 1:1 la',iPd; ,t co- nitteej. snail recommend .i e',, I' :f, !hod ng sources for housing production and services pa-tics a•.r,i, uy, Iii:i pc:v-ri;,r:rots including appropriate pudic ant, -,t -,art,.inn such that cast ,rrrisdirhon contributes on ri Is st,an.,. ,''.is :,n IIi•iriar;,,r; Sh0—.1a appy strategies tivt',ict. 1l ...'riii'i<S: , JR most appropriate to'he Io;;a;housing market r or Bxaniiiia i. '. .iftc'r,lad'. i 47 ano 1n iderate income It,)Lserulac ?:i,f a -la.dei open through new construction projects that assure l,n:j ti-i'.' at'nf_t_: i.'pf -i i'rri,tiog oo.si n,.), or accessory hOL`;itii.; i;;Ils aided to existing structures Sm !l.fully-built cities and towns tl•et cn:cat r;lanned to ci. a 3u6stan'-al,y :ray' ork coope'ativeiy i dr',i: :t:itr;ur:s:rtctrons andror sun egioi:al;lousing agencies to i`tesr; 1`If'il "u,Islitg:aicets ,,, :_, -t..,=1;uns;ait:don shall evaluate its ??nti,.., :r.so rex of subs,Gized and ,ow-cost non-subsidized hods r q Onc mei-It`v I'',tra:nit t;ti may re lost due to redcveiupmeci 'I ,'i ,L,,,.,,iy w 1".,,..,,is or pu,.7r; n.,.rs , actions tiv1 it .t -_,al' :l-,-,i.QC; strategies ,,, press r, re: i c boos ry -;a a; ,,,roe relocation assistance to lo1„_ :,. i rt:; ,;h,. ,, ..,, di',o;<;:.,e:; „'ASi-3i SJc,tris'v:^.i ",- V.,!i :as the i vate 55c,,o: `..j i r ,,,r,t .,<.i ra' and su{,::orf ecu �.^oidabie housing fro^, `t,, ...,t,ie, ..-.,_ (i! and „-.tip . . lf:: . 1' 7 Figure 28.1 Local and Federal CDBG Dollars Dedicated to New and In 2005, King County jurisdictions dedicated Preserved Low-Income Housing: over $18.6 million toward the creation, 1996-2005 preservation and repair of affordable housing. 1996 4,,1; 11Ki01!'w Local public dollars are funds that are ilii controlled by an individual jurisdiction. These 1997 j ''' ';'''?"6”- 1:41f°,tK`:: _ funds include bonds,levies,general fund and 1998 9-._ ;`, ', - in-kind contributions that can be quantified 1999C� such as a waiver of fees or donation of land. Federal dollars here include only Community 2000r, , Vi. °zl Development Block Grant(CDBG)funds. 2002 ,,,,--p, i ; >il 'J`•i• 2003 .. i;itz;,;Oitill. As shown in figure 28.2, King County jurisdictions created or preserved 1,437 low- 2004 , •'`'R'''.e <'.a +Y . income housing units, permitted 127 new 2005 .. <3`;A:`.*Ak Accessory Dwelling Units,and repaired 618 • units in 2005. A preserved unit is an existing Figure 28.2 unit of housing which is required to remain or Units Units Created to become affordable housing for a specific Created or or Preserved ADU's Units period of time. A repaired unit refers to the Preserved Through Permitted Repaired rehabilitation or restoration of existing with Public Incentive affordable housing without the guarantee of Funds* Programs Seattle 306 297 67 47 long-term affordability;therefore,such units Auburn 60 0 0 42 do not necessarily increase the existing KC HOME stock of affordable housing. and CDBG 637 0 42 529 Consortia** As identified in the endnote on page 16, MPD's 0 137 0 0 King County jurisdictions dedicated another fi"1` tat units 1 Q03 r 434 i 10 618 $32.6 million in other local,state and federal s _ o new funds to affordable housing-related activities *Supported by the $15,465282 in CDBG and local dollars dedicated to new and preserved affordable housing in Figure 28.3."Consortia includes King County and serving low-income households. '' laW partner cities outside Seattle. 10 Decent Ser 2006 Affordable Housing n Figure 28.3 New & New & Housing Total Discretionary Operating Units ADUs Year Reserved Preserved Repair(CDBG Funding (CDBG) (Local) &Local) (CDBG&Local) Subsidies Repaired Permitted Auburn 2004 $ - $ - $ 141,674 $ 141,674 $ 53,800 48 - iallialla2M1111111111MUIEWMIU11111111112=1MMA 42 Bellevue 2004 $ 50,000 $ 140,000 $ 653,543 $ 843,543 $ 236,857 80 7 IlMallaingIMIIIMINtaillIMMUIRMEIMIZIIIMIMII83 1 Bothell 2004 $ 78,826 $ - $ - $ 78.826 $ 33,605 - - 2005 $ 23,330 $ - $ - $ 23,330 $ 34,205 - - Burien 2004 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - 2005 $ - $ - $ 43,931 $ 43,931 $ - 7 5 Clyde Hill* 2004 $ - $ 7,500 $ - $ 7,500 $ - - - 2005 $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 $ - - - Covington 2004 $ - $ - $ 59,349 $ 59,349 $ 12,792 6 - 2005 $ - $ - $ 80,325 $ 80,325 $ 11,962 8 - Des Moines 2004 $ - $ - $ 32,838 $ 32,838 $ - 2 - 2005 $ - $ - $ 123,772 $ 123,772 $ - 8 - Enumclaw 2004 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,011 - - 2005 $ 67,743 $ - $ - $ 67,743 $ - - - Federal Way 2004 $ 118,726 $ 88,200 $ 80,469 $ 287,395 $ 29,640 12 1 2005 $ 92,339 $ 80,200 $ 52,857 $ 225,396 $ - 8 1 Issaquah 2004 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 27,000 - - 2005 $ 39,939 $ 85,000 $ - $ 124,939 $ 31,500 - 11 Kenmore* 2004 $ - $ 132,500 $ - $ 132,500 $ - - 3 2005 $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 75,000 $ - - 5 Kent 2004 $ - $ - $ 363,550 $ 363,550 $ 90,620 151 - 2005 $ - $ - $ 269,816 $ 269,816 $ 57,500 139 1 Illkise Kirkland 2004 $ 200,756 $ 240,157 $ 12,791 $ 453,704 $ 129,792 2 3 2005 $ 5,967 '. 106,350 $ 10,426 '. 122,743 $ 147,797 2 2 Lake Forest 2004 $ - $ - $ 16,902 $ 16,902 $ - 2 - Park 2005 $ - $ - $ 15,931 $ 15,931 $ - 2 - Medina 2004 $ - $ 7,500 $ - $ 7,500 $ - - - 2005 $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 $ - - - Mercer Island 2004 $ - $ 8,817 $ 11,322 $ 20,139 $ - 2 6 2005 $ 61,411 $ 10,000 $ 8,291 $ 79,702 $ - 1 1 2004 $ - $ 87,060 $ - $ 87,060 $ - - New castle` 3 2005 $ - $ 23,500 $ - $ 23,500 $ - - 2 Redmond 2004 $ 50,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ 89,972 - 2 2005 $ - $ 4,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ 128,444 - 1 2004 $ 15,000 $ - $ 247,750 $ 262,750 $ 9,600 - Renton 2 2005 $ 80,323 $ - $ 233,280 $ 313,603 $ - 160 - Sammamish 2004 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - 2005 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,424 - - SeaTac 2004 $ - $ - $ 102,720 $ 102,720 $ - 36 - 2005 $ - $ - $ 25,846 $ 25,846 $ - 24 - Seattle 2004 $ 1,581,369 $ 8,012,586 $ 1,200,535 $ 10,794,490 $ 794,997 348 51 2005 $ 821,369 $ 10,682,930 $ 681,147 $ 12,185,446 $ 786,213 47 67 Shoreline 2004 $ 70,000 $ 17,000 $ 188,669 $ 275,669 $ - 8 4 2005 $ 20,000 $ 18,345 $ 139,804 $ 178,149 $ - 36 3 Tukw ila 2004 $ - $ - $ 89,875 $ 89,875 $ 43,000 29 - 2005 $ 103,694 $ - $ 67,037 $ 170,731 $ 46,000 25 - Uninc.King 2004 $ 118,000 $ 2,169,260 $ 555,508 $ 2,842,768 $ 219,141 50 8 Cty* 2005 $ 118,000 $ 2,697,181 $ 667,565 $ 3,482,746 $ 206,222 26 9 Woodinville` 2004 $ - $ 7,500 $ - $ 7,500 $ 98,000 - - ;CButrty Totai 2004 $ 2,282,677 $ 11,268,080 $ 3,767,495 $ 17,308 252 $1,876,827 776 90 2005 • $ 1,574015 $13,891,267 $ 3,198,869 18,664,151 $1,853,444 ` 618 109; `Allocations are administered through the County and Small Cities Fund of the King County CDBG Consortium by King County 11 .. 1 trdicaror =s , Y i , . 29 ' Metropnl t. ,g county Countywide Planning Policies Be u! e ; ` n Existing Housing Units Affordable to Low Income Hous hc11d:::; ,i.. ;2.` TI; !' ' ''t. ' 1..}' .°e7 aim:ow:: I`��ti1f�OTe: .>ti.1,:"?. _., �.iaS�t"f�`�i�`.i .. C1:= t�Cj�ji•rai3Lty re,..f.J�,��.�.i.�.._, n- ";. ..... 7. Countywide Planning Policy Rationale l Cacti. risdiction snail specify the range non an,ot it of dousing affordable to low and mode'ate-income huusehn:ds tore no., mu date;,1 Ir' its curnp,enensive plan'and]. shad p,ar he a'i; noor of housing units affordable to to households with incomes i-,E. 2 and 80 Ipercent of the County median household inchm that,s equal to 1 7`..of its protected net household growth each ,ii.ri:::ii.i,, sr-�;f plata to, a dumber of housing units affordable to households with .ncomes below 50°x, of median income that is either.-U er.cn: 0r 24 1,}e;cent of its protected net housenold gse oli (AH 2; 'All jurisdictions shall. determine annually toe total :i�.r,bwr ::t nc,'w atm edevo op a units r ceiving permits ane; urns ,ertstructed housing types developed densities and remaining capon tv for residenti3i I grnvvtn Housing prices and rents also should be repotted, based on affordability to four income categores zoic to 50 percent of 1-median income 50 to 80 percent 80 in 120'4 and above 120 percent." (AH-5) j 11-he GIV1PC]. .shalt review icciii pr.tio,mnnce .r ;-- ebasis.shall be a jurisdiction s participa.ton in Countywide r,,:.,u':'.1 or_ti,,fforts .cl E;��i"iC,ow and moderate inCGi"e h.:;.,;�PYi r 3c r1,i '�,�, t' t idriptett in its comprehensive plan ,t�.t•-hi Single Family Sales. In King County,just 10% of all single family homes sold in 2005 were affordable to the median income household. Nearly half of these homes were purchased in South King County,while just 3%were found in East King County. Condo Sales. For lower income households interested in homeownership,condominiums provide more affordable housing opportunities. Over a third of all condo sales in 2005 were affordable to households at 80% of median income in 2005,and such units were relatively evenly distributed among King County's sub-areas. However,condo ownership is less viable for households earning 50%of median income; less than 7%of all condos sold in King County were affordable to that income category in 2005. Rental Units. Alternatively, more than nine out of ten rental units in King County were affordable to households earning 80%of median income, and nearly half of all rental units were affordable to households earning 50%of median income. Of all rental units affordable to this latter income group, nearly 85% were split evenly between South King County and the SeaShore sub-area;only 6%were located in East King County. Of all rental units in the SeaShore sub-area, nearly 40%were considered affordable to households earning 50%of median income. In East King County, less than 15%of all rental units were affordable to such households. The highest rate of rental affordability for households earning 50%of median income is in South King County,where nearly 80%of all rental units were affordable. Figure 29.1 Distribution of Housing Stock in King County for Different Income Groups o SeaShore ta East o South 0 Rural Cities ■ Uninc. KC ° 3% 48% 38% 6 ° ,11, 3ih ,. .,.... . , �" ,44, \ 42/0 22% 0% 2% 24% 3% 20% 13% 42% 8% Single Family Sales Condo Sales Rental Units Affordable to Affordable to 80% of Affordable to 50% of Median Income Median Income Median Income 12 • December 2006 Affordable Housing Figure 29.2 E } c flt.`o county titittsiogli,. Single Famil Sales Condo/Townhome Sales Rental Units Percent Affordable by Percent Affordable by Percent Affordable by Total Income Category Total Income Category Est.Total Income Category # <80% <50% # <80% <50% # <80% <50% Lake Forest Park 225 1.8% 0.0% 21 38.1% 0.0% 1,020 98.4% 76 0% Seattle 11,199 2.8% 0 5% 4,123 15.0% 0.5% 148,945 88.6% 37 7% Shoreline 1,009 2.5% 0.3% 299 62.9% 1.7% 6,909 99 9% 66 7% SEA-SHORE 12,433 2.7% 0.4% 4,443 18.3% 0.6% 156,874 89.2% 39.3% Beaux Arts* 9 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 5 0.0% 0 0% Bellevue 1,987 0.8% 0.2% 1,269 28.3% 5.8% 20,215 92.1% 23.3% Bothell 234 4.7% 0 4% 106 45.3% 5.7% 2,372 99.9% 24 4% CI de Hill* 101 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 44 0.0% 0.0% Hunts Point* 22 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 27 0.0% 0 0% • 926 0.1% 0.0% 567 24 7% 0.0% 3,929 85.3% 3.9% Kenmore 492 1.6% 0.2% 101 16.8% 6.9% 2,374 99.3% 46 3% Kirkland 968 0.8% 0.1% 991 31.5% 5.3% 10,097 77.5% 9 5% Medina* 88 2.3% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 98 25.0% 0 0% Mercer Island 444 0.0% 0.0% 83 14.5% 0.0% 1,768 89.5% 5 4% Newcastle 283 0.4% 0.0% 101 38.6% 1.0% 870 98.4% 5.1% Redmond 907 1.2% 0.3% 488 39.8% 9.0% 10,120 91.9% 2.4% Sammamish 1,488 0.5% 0 1% 213 7.0% 0.5% 1,389 77.6% 0 0% Woodinville 274 1.8% 0.7% 106 57.5% 9.4% 1,118 99.1% 16.7% Yarrow Point* 34 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 18 0.0% 0.0% EAST 8,257 0.8% 0.1% 4,025 29.7% 4.8% 54,444 89.8% 14.5% Auburn 705 13.0% 0 9% 169 84.6% 27.8% 8,526 99.9% 83 9% Black Diamond* 99 7.1% 0.0% 8 25.0% 0.0% 168 83 4% 66 7% Burien 524 6.9% 1.0% 59 91.5% 23.7% 6,043 99.9% 81.4% Covina ton 682 7.2% 04% 3 0.0% 0.0% 536 99.1% 00% DesMoines 536 4.9% 0.9% 169 68.0% 20.1% 4,632 99.8% 83.5% Federal Wa 1,728 5.4% 0.4% 504 85.7% 25 8% 15,227 99 9% 85 2% Kent 1,416 4.6% 0.4% 650 54.8% 13.1% 18,268 99.9% 84.8% Maple Valle 916 2.3% 0.1% 13 0.0% 0.0% 790 99.4% 0.0% Milton(KC part)* 27 3.7% 3.7% 0 N/A N/A 133 99.3% 75.3% Normandy Park 112 0.9% 0.0% 6 33.3% 0.0% 597 98.9% 97.8% Pacific 147 12.9% 2.0% 0 N/A N/A 1,013 99.8% 98.8% Renton 1,518 3.1% 0.5% 637 58.4% 11.5% 13,450 96.2% 57.0% SeaTac 439 9.1% 1.1% 76 65.8% 23.7% 4,739 99.8% 86.2% Tukwila 274 11.7% 1.8% 88 89.8% 42.0% 4,548 99.9% 87.2% AI•ona* 63 19.0% 0.0% 4 75.0% 0.0% 178 100.0% 0.0% SOUTH 9,186 5.9% 0.6% 2,386 67.4% 18.4% 78,848 99.2% 78.9% Carnation* 38 7.9% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 141 91.9% 47.1% Duvall* 233 0.0% 0.0% 28 10.7% 0.0% 221 100.0% 73.3% Enumclaw 253 9.9% 0.0% 21 66.7% 9.5% 1,622 100.0% 98.6% North Bend 102 2.9% 2.0% 12 0.0% 0.0% 811 89.7% 10.2% Sk komish* 4 75.0% 25.0% 0 N/A N/A 36 91.9% 47.1% Sno•ualmie* 517 1.0% 0.0% 54 3.7% 3.7% 1,009 82.9% 62.9% RURAL CITIES 1,147 3.4% 0.3% 115 16.5% 3.5% 3,840 94.4% 56.9% UNINC.KC 8 605 3.9% 0.4% 1 111 47.3% 13.1% 28 857 96.0% 39.4% KP TOTAL 9,04 .....44%!t .2 ,... .N4 [,... . *View rental data with caution due to small sample size 13 •` 54 a S Me ropo i1at ,King minty Countywide i ig0 Policies Benchmark Fr 1,iias - ,s•i.•a i,,`.:,.•.', .3• . :.r ,'.a_, .y • 14 r ` .. :; , ter - E / ope.:;-;*,$.. i-;&,:-,12, 1:444'..,?.(:'if,-• *-L,, 1..,,.. ,,.,'••‘.... ..,. ...„ ... . s 1, '' _: 0i0ember 2006 Affordable Housing • =.s= able HousIng Benchmark n no1ea Committee to End homelessness King County website, (13,ttm; Indicator 21: Supply and Demand for Affordable Rental s\ssss cchke.ssrrlukc-fucts_<htniI),accessed 11/07/2006. Causes Housing of homelessness taken from the Hunger and Homelessness Survey, Number of renter households by income group derived from Table 2005, by The United States Conference of Mayors - Sodexho, DP-3.2005 American Community Survey(ACS),availableatlittp. Inc., mailable at l tt_r--- ,» u_rua it kg a ernnc e__ rccr,usg.cr,,. Number of rental units as ailable to income pul;lic tt,n... groups derived from 2006 King County Rental Housing Affordability Report,prepared by Dupre+Scott Apartment Advisors.Inc. Number Indicator 24: Home Purchase Affordability Gap of rental units available to income groups is understated as it does 1970, 1980 and 1990 median home price uses home value as not include subsidized units. The last count of both market rate and proxy for sales price as reported by U.S. Census Bureau, subsidized units was taken by U.S. HUD in 2000. As per 2909 ss issi ccuou_,. 1)s_. It exludes condominiums. 2000-2005 median Comprehensive Housing Affordability Data, there were a total of home price data taken from the King County Records,Elections 31.600 rental units available to households earning at or below 3(100 and Licensing Services Dis ision/ Recorder's Office, ittt_g of coca media income(AMI)and an additional 70,200 units affordable \\\\\\ metruke. t)v,recti Ice-recti(Is:. Census data affordable home to households earning 31%to 50%ofAMI in 2000. Complete 2000 price assumes a 10`)/0 down payment on a 30-year mortgage with CHAS Data available at httn_.';". 'ty_huduSer_tirg'daidSetti L.h,hlmi• a mortgage payment at 25% of monthly income. A 5% down Indicator assumes an average vacancy rate of6%,taken from Spring payment is assumed from 2000-2005. This bulletin assumes that Fall 2005 Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report(RF_RR), housing is considered affordable when no more than 30%of monthly 1 hl 57,Numbers I and 2. prepared by the Central Puget Sound Real income is expended on housing costs, which include both a Estate Research Committee. mortgage pay ment and other incidental housing costs such as utilities. For Affordable Housing Bulletins previously published. Indicator 22: Percent of income Paid for Housing annual home sales data obtained from Northwest Multiple Listing Proportion of income dedicated to housing costs for renter owner Service. households derived from Tables DP-3 and DP-4, 2005 American Community Survey(,aCS),available at hl tp_'.'ta1ctlincler.''n,us,go . Indicator 25: Home Ownership Rate Total households excludes 11,900 households with zero or negative 2005 home ownership rates for the metropolitan area.state,region income or paying no cash rent. Affordability defined by U.S. and country provided by U.S Census, Housing Vacancy and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUM, hitt,. Homeownership Survey, (i)tit:_sy��_�s.:_c�nsus��ys_._hlic;_�s\\�._ _}.CH a liordablc!uotisinei. a ru,i.ur, rs s.ii s s.litnil). 2005 home ownership rate for King County, including tenure by household income category taken Indicator 23: Homelessness from 2005 American Community Survey, asailable at MIT__ Figure 23.1 data provided by King County Department of t;taiiiiadei,_c�rriis_<>'-'�-' Community and Human Services/Community Services Dis ision. taken from the Seattle-King County One Night Count(0.5().ht h; Indicator 26: Apartment Vacancy Rate ti_oi)omtl;ssinlu:err'_ tnehlml. Estimated uncounted homeless Rental vacancy rates based on a biannual survey of apartment persons not available at time of publication. Annual population properties by Dupre 4- Scott Apartment Advisors, Inc. and percentages derived from King County population estimates reported in King County Rental Housing Affordability Report. The provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management annual vacancy rate is an average of the vacancy rates over the (OFM),ltttp_: _o n.<sl>>_\ti, p}_ pp_. Figure 23.2 data from the course of a calendar year. Figure A 2005 King County Single Family Home Sales:Price Range Distribution 3,500 - a 3,000 _ b Price Affordable to Average Household ($228,100) _ - ®�•b• Median Sales Price $369,000 m 2,500 1 ®— ( ) I Price Range (in $25,000 increments) 0 2,000 H ., -- 1500 .l "" Z 1,000 1 v, — _ 7� 500 $100K $200K $300K $400K $500K $600K $700K $800K $900K $1.0M $1.1M $1.2M Sale Price Range 15 • Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark ProgratTi Indicator 27: Trend of Housing Costs in Relation to Income 100%Area Median Income (AMI), 56 ownership units for 1990 median home price uses home valoe as proxy for sales price households at 100-120% AMI and 14 ownership units for as reported by U.S. Census Bureau, Imp:_, ivva.cemius.Qi' . It households over 120%. An additional $5,602.112 in Regional exludes condominiums. 2000-2005 median home price data taken Affordable Housing Program(RAIIP)funds were awarded through from the King County Records,Elections and Licensing Services an injurisdictional process for affordable housing development. Division/ Recorder's Office, htth_,_ y rtie[rol:c.g _recclec r ids.. Median household income derived from U.S.Department Indicator 29: Existing Housing Units Affordable to Low of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), http::_ Income Households 0550,h+__Lduser.irg_datascts_il.him I. Median household income Median sales price data of single family homes and condominium figures for 2000-2003 are interpolations,based on the fact that units taken from the King County Records,Elections and Licensing HUD overestimated household income in this region during the Services Division/ Recorder's Office, hap: j‘v vv vv_mctrokcLoG • recession period. The 2004 median income is derived from a recelec records'. Tenure and ty pe of housing units derived from revised HUD estimate. Average annual rent(2 BR/1 BA unit)is the 2000 Census. U.S. Census Bureau. hap_vv o a \:. an average taken from the biannual Central Puget Sound Real Estate and April 2006 estimates by the Washington State Office of Research Report (RERR), prepared by the Central Puget Sound Financial Management (OEM I. Ii:i, v,,t w,ufnt_vva.gon_Rental Real Estate Research Committee. Annual percent change in median unit afiord abiIits Iruin 2006 Knig County Rental Housing household income,median home price,and average rent from 1990 AffordabilitvReport,prepared by Dupre+Scott Apartment Advisors, to 2000 averages the percent change over the ten-year period. Inc. Total rental units likely overestimated. It is speculated that home ownership has increased from the rate reported in 2000 U.S. Indicator 28: Public Dollars Spent for Low Income Housing Census but is not verifiable at time of this publication. Total Those cities that dedicated local public dollars toward low-income rental units also differs from that of Indicator 21, derived from housing in 2004 and 2005 are identified in Figure 28.3. Data on 2005 American Commiinitl Survey and 2006 King County Rental local dollars spent and regulatory incentives is supplied by the Housing Affordability Report.prepared by Dupre+Scott Apartment King County and Small Cities Consortium,by the Seattle Office Advisors,Inc. of Housing,by A Regional Coalition for Housing(ARCH)and by individual cities. Data was compiled by King County Department Map: 2005 Single Family Home Sales by Price Range of Community and Human Services/Community Services Division. Sales data includes 39.628 single family home sales as reported in Data on units funded.ADU's created.number of units built through Indicator 29, Figure 29.2. Data taken from the King County regulatory incentives and units repaired also provided by these Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division/Recorder's sources. Comprehensive data for 2001 is not available or included Office.hap:j: v\o_iriz robcgov rccclec:ruenr{,. herein. In addition to those dollars/efforts specified in Indicator 28,jurisdictions have dedicated other dollars in 2005 including the Figure A: 2005 King County Single Family Home Sales: following. Bellevue provided$81,246 to support homelessness Price Range Distribution prevention. An additional 13 units were preserved or created in Sales data includes 39,628 single family home sales as reported in Federal Way through density bonuses. Kent provided$24,150 in Indicator 29, Figure 29.2. Data taken from the King County housing stability grants. Seattle's contribution includes Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division/Recorder's $21,637.521 in federal and local funds for affordable housing- Office,lyttp sywwmetrokc go\;recelec,_recor_Is, related activities serving low-income households.Local Levy and CDBG funds(discretionary)include:$11,504,299(included above) The King County Countywide Planning Policies for 461 units of newly constructed or preserved multifamily Benchmark Program is a program of the Metropolitan King housing; Local Levy funds include: $681,147 for repair of 47 County Growth Management Planning Council. Established in 1995,the program monitors the effectiveness of the Countywide single-family homes and$786,213(included above)for operating Planning Policies,a long-range planning framework to promote subsidies for 372 multifamily units. Non-discretionary funds smart and sustainable growth in the county. Reports on the 45 include: $3,216,507 HOME for newly constructed or preserved Benchmark Indicators--which provide a high-level review of multifamily housing(supporting the 461 units aforementioned). growth and development trends--are published annually by the Additional discretionary funds for multifamily housing originally King County Office of Management and Budget Acompanion to funded in previous years include $1,185,902 Local Levy and these reports is the King County Annual Growth Report.All $520,728 transferable development rights proceeds.State and local reports are available on the Internet at http://www.metrokc.gov/ weatherization funds include:$790,365 for 700 multifamily units budget/. For information about the Benchmark Program, and$899,360 for 213 single-family units.$2,053,000 in local Levy please contact Lisa Voight, Program Manager(206)296-3464, and HOME funds for homebuyer assistance for first-time, low- ore-mail lisa.voight @metrokc.gov.The Benchmark Program income homebuyers supported 66 loans.In addition.297 affordable address is King County Office of Management and Budget,701 units were provided through Multifamily Tax Examption Program Fifth Ave,Suite 3200 Seattle,WA 98104. incentives. On behalf of the King County Consortium$4,080,000 in HOME funds were dedicated for new units,$500,000 in HOME King County Office of Management and Budget funds were dedicated to housing repair,$300,000 was dedicated Bob Cowan,Director to a Housing Stabilization Project, $194,772 was dedicated to Chandler Felt,Demographer/Growth Information Team Lead Emergency Shelter grants and$200,000 was dedicated to Rental Lisa Voight,Benchmark Program Manager,Lead Analyst Nanette M.Lowe,Growth Information Team,G.I.S.Analyst Rehabilitation loans.Master Planned Development agreements at Jeremy Valenta,Growth Information Team,Analyst *0411.4 Redmond Ridge secured 67 ownership units for households at 80- Brad Dillman,Growth Information Team,Intern 16 Pb )t ilearin j 2 erg °V Q. March 12, 2007 Regular City Council Meeting Added Information - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4.a City Code amendments concerning: R-4 zone development clustering; R-1, R-4, and R-8 zone design standards; tree retention; and animal regulations. • Attachment 1: Small Lot Cluster Development and Design Standards • Attachment 2: Tree Retention as amended 3/9/2007 corresponding to Ordinance Draft March 2007 • Attachment 3: Animal Regulations CITY OF RENTON Attachment 1: Small Lot Cluster Development and Design Standards . MAR I, 2 2007 ISSUE CITY CLERK S OFFICE • Should the City strike the text requiring that cluster development occur within 600 feet of the Residential Single Family land use designation, effectively allowing cluster development throughout the R-4 zone? • Should text requiring special architectural features in small lot cluster development be placed in the building standards for development in the R-1, R-4, and R-8 zoning designations? • Should the City expand the requirement for vertical façade modulation from the R-4 zone to also include the R-1 and R-8 zones? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adopting code amendments to allow small lot cluster development throughout the R-4 zone, require design standards in the R-1, R-4 and R-8 zones, and require vertical façade modulation in the R-1 and R-8 zones. These changes reflect recommendations of the East Renton Plateau Citizens Task Force and are intended to facilitate visually appealing residential development. BACKGROUND SUMMARY The East Renton Plateau Citizens Task Force expressed a desire to protect open space and the more rural nature of the East Renton area. They also expressed an understanding of the pressure for development and the need of developers to achieve a reasonable rate of return on investment. Small lot cluster development is a means to achieve preservation of open space while also facilitating the ability to express the intended density in the R-4 zone. In order to be able to develop small lot clusters, it is required that 30 percent of the land be set aside permanently as "significant open space." The amount of required open space can be reduced to 20 percent if all three of the following criteria are met: 1) public access is provided to the open space, 2) soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers, and 3) storm water ponds are designed to eliminate engineered slopes that require fencing and are enhanced to allow passive and/or active recreation. Additionally, the East Renton Plateau Citizens Task Force and citizens at public meetings regarding the East Renton area expressed concern about the outcome of the residential development that has occurred around the NE 4th St corridor. The general opinion was that the end result is unattractive to those who view the communities from the arterial roadway. Residents of the East Renton area are concerned that when the sewer moratorium for their area is lifted, there will be a significant amount of new development that will begin occurring on the plateau and that this new development will mimic the type they do not care for along NE 4th St. Currently, City code has simple design guidelines required for small lot cluster development. Implementation of these design standards in the R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones would likely help facilitate residential , development that is visually appealing. The standards seek to provide a varied appearance to residential units, so that there is less"cloned" or"cookie cutter"type development. There are three architectural standards that would be required: 1) decorative hip or gable roofs, 2) trim on windows and doors, and 3)projecting eaves. The City also has a requirement for vertical façade modulation in the building standards for the R-4 zone. The expansion of this requirement to the R-1 and R-8 zones help facilitate a varied residential product. CONCLUSION Implementation of design standards in the City would benefit all new residential development in R-1,R-4, and R-8 zones that occurs in the City by ensuring a varied product that is visually interesting. The standards are not extensive, but are a simple means to accommodate residents desire to see a varied residential product while not adding significant costs to builders and/or developers. Allowing small lot cluster development to occur throughout the R-4 zone is likely to help preserve open space while not limiting the density of the zone. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Multiple Zone Amends\Residential\issue paper-cluster&design.doc Page 2 of 2 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing, shadow platting, or land reserves may be used to satisfy the minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current development would not preclude the provision of adequate access and infrastructure to future development and would allow for the eventual satisfaction of minimum density requirements through future development. b. In the event the applicant can show that minimum density cannot be achieved due to lot configuration, lack of access, environmental or physical constraints, minimum density requirements may be waived by the Reviewing Official. 2. Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions that are not eligible for a variance include: building size, units per structure/lot, or densities. Unless bonus size or density provisions are specifically authorized, the modification of building size, units per structure, or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions and/or a Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezone. 3. Clustering is allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant natural features, providing neighborhood open space, or facilitating the provision of sewer service. Within designated urban separators, clustering is required, consistent with the provision of RMC 4-3-110, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. a. The maximum net density requirement shall not be exceeded except that within urban separators a density bonus may be granted allowing the total density to achieve one dwelling unit per gross contiguous acre for projects that meet the following criteria: (i) Provision of native vegetation cover on sixty-five percent(65%) of the gross area of all parcels in the land use action, including both the area within and outside the open space corridor, with either existing or new vegetative cover, and at least one of the following additional criteria: (A) Enhancement of wetlands is provided at a ratio of one-half(1/2) acre enhanced for one acre delineated within the urban separator pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M12b, Evaluation Criteria, and RMC 4-3-050M12c, Wetlands Chosen for Enhancement. Enhancement proposed for a density bonus may not also be used for a mitigation for other wetland alterations. (B) Legal nonconforming uses are removed from the site and/or brought into conformance with Renton standards. (C) Natural surface pedestrian trails, with public access, are provided as part of an adopted trail system or, where there is no planned trail system, in a configuration approved by the Reviewing Official. (D) In the absence of either wetlands or legal nonconforming uses on the site, public access and trails shall be required to the satisfaction of the Reviewing Official. (ii) Parcels within the urban separator may be combined into larger contiguous holdings to allow platting to achieve bonus density; however, existing legal lots shall not be reduced in land area for the purpose of transferring density unless such lots are included in a proposed plat. b. The area of individual lots shall not be less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks: a. Fireplace Structures, Windows: Fireplace structures, bay or garden windows, enclosed stair landings, and similar structures as determined by the Zoning Administrator may project twenty four inches(24") into any setback; provided, such projections are: (i) Limited to two(2) per facade. (ii) Not wider than 10'. b. Fences: See RMC 4-4-040. c. Steps and Decks: Uncovered steps and decks not exceeding eighteen inches (18") above the finished grade may project to any property line. Uncovered steps and decks having no roof covering and not exceeding forty two inches (42") high may be built within the front yard setback. d. Eaves: Eaves and cornices may project up to twenty four inches (24") into any required setback. 5. In order to be considered detached, a structure must be sited a minimum of six feet(6')from any residential structure. 6. A front yard setback of less than twenty feet(20') is allowed if equal to or greater than the average of the front yard setback of the existing, abutting primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum setback of less than twenty feet(20') be allowed for garages which access from the front yard street(s). 7. For pre-existing legal lots having less than the minimum lot width required by this Section, the following chart shall apply for determining the required minimum side yard width along a street: WIDTH OF EXISTING, LEGAL LOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD WIDTH ALONG A STREET RC ZONE 150 feet or less 25 ft. R-1 ZONE Less than or equal to 50 ft. 10 ft. 50.1to51ft. 11 ft. 51.1 to 52 ft. 12 ft. 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. 55.1 to 56 ft. 16 ft. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17 ft. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. 59.1 and greater 20 ft. R-4 orR-8ZONE Less than or equal to 50 ft. 10 ft. 50.1 to 52 ft. 11 ft. 52.1 to 54 ft. 12 ft. 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 ft. 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. 58.1 or greater 15 ft. However, in no case shall a structure over forty two inches(42") in height intrude into the twenty-foot(20') clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. 8. In no case shall building height exceed the maximum allowed by the Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions, for uses located within the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Zones designated under RMC 4-3-020. 9. "Public Suffix"(P) properties are allowed the following height bonus: Publicly owned structures shall be permitted an additional fifteen feet(15')in height above that otherwise permitted in the zone if"pitched roofs," as defined herein, are used for at least sixty percent(60%)or more of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. In addition, the height of a publicly owned structure may be increased as follows, up to a maximum height of seventy five feet(75') to the highest point of the building: a. When abutting a public street, one additional foot of height for each additional one and one-half feet(1-1/2')of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum street setback required; and/or b. When abutting a common property line, one additional foot of height for each additional two feet(2') of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a common property line. 10. In order to serve as a transition between the lower density R 4 Zone and higher density development, "sSmall lot clusters"of up to a maximum of fifty(50) lots shall be allowed within " • -. -- :e e)-ef-the Single Family Land Use Designation as shown on the • - - -o - -- -- • -.-- •• .-R-4 Zone, when at least thirty percent(30%) of the site is permanently set aside as "significant open space."Such open space shall be situated to act as a visual buffer between small lot clusters and other development in the zone. The percentage of open space required may be reduced by the reviewing official to twenty percent(20%)of the site when: a. Public access is provided to open space; b. Soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers; and c. Storm water ponds are designed to eliminate engineered slopes requiring fencing and enhanced to allow passive and/or active recreation. steel+iteltrde - . . ' • - - --- - -- • . .• -- . . . - - - inchcs (1 . .• . -- . . All portions of a site that are not dedicated to platted single family lots or a dedicated right of way shall be set in a separate tract and/or tracts to preserve existing viable stands of trees or other native vegetation. The tract may also be used as a receiving area for tree replacement requirements in accordance with RMC 4-4-130H- Such tracts shall be shown and recorded on the face of the plat to be preserved in perpetuity. Such tracts may be included in contiguous open space for the purposes of qualifying for small lot clustered development. Where trees are removed, . . . -. . - •- - - . -- • rcquircd. they shall be replaced in accordance with RMC 4-4-130 H. 11. Lot size, width, and depth may be reduced by the Reviewing Official when, due to lot configuration or access, four(4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved. The reduction shall be the minimum needed to allow four(4)dwelling units per net acre and shall be limited to the following minimum dimensions: Lot size—seven thousand two hundred (7,200) sq. ft. Lot width—sixty feet(60'). Lot depth—seventy feet(70'). 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks may also be reduced by the Reviewing Official. Setback reductions shall be limited to the following: Front—twenty feet(20'). Side yard along a street—fifteen feet(15') primary structure, twenty feet(20') attached garage with access from the side yard. Side—Minimum side yard combined setback—fifteen feet(15'). Minimum for one yard—five feet(5'). 13. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to November 10, 2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within five(5)years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. iiiimmoommoommosamor Maximum density—five(5) dwelling units per net acre. Minimum lot size—seven thousand two hundred (7,200) sq. ft. Minimum lot width—sixty feet(60')for interior lots, seventy feet(70')for corner lots. Minimum lot depth—seventy feet(70'). Minimum front yard—fifteen feet(15')for the primary structure, twenty feet(20')for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to ten feet(10') if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of-way or alley. Minimum side yard along a street—fifteen feet(15'). Minimum side yard—five feet(5'). 14. Covenants filed as part of any final plat shall establish that future division of land within the plat must be consistent with the maximum density requirements as measured within the plat as a whole as of the time of future division. (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004; Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005; Ord. 5153, 9-26- 2005) 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) RC R-1 R-4 R-8 DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum Housing Density for proposed 4 dwelling units per net None None None short plats or acre.l 2 subdivisions 1 dwelling unit per 1 net acre except that in designated Urban Separators, density of Maximum Housing 1 dwelling unit per 10 net 4 dwelling units per 1 net 8 dwelling units per 1 net up to 1 unit per gross acre Density2,14 acres.5 acre.t3 acre. may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-3-110, Urban Separator Overlay. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER LOT Maximum Number 1 dwelling with 1 accessory 1 dwelling unit. 1 dwelling unit. 1 dwelling unit. per legal lot2 unit. LOT DIMENSIONS 8,000 sq.ft.,11,13 except%I-hem Minimum Lot Size for 1 acre. 4,500 sq.ft. for parcels 10 acres. for small lot clusterst0 arc lots created after 10,000 sq. ft. for cluster greater than 1 acre. allowed where R-8 standards November 10, 2004 development.3 shall apply. 5,000 sq.ft. for parcels 1 acre or less. 75 ft. for interior lots. 85 ft. for corner lots. 70 ft. for interior lots. Minimum Lot Width Except for clustered 80 ft. for corner lots.11,13 150 ft. for interior lots. P 50 ft. for interior lots. for lots created after 175 ft. for corner lots. development within Except where-for small lot 60 ft. for corner lots. November 10, 2004 designated Urban Separators, clustersl°arc allowed where; R-4 standards shall apply for R-8 standards shall apply. both interior and corner lots. 80 ft.,11,13 except for small lot Minimum Lot Depth clusters10 where R-8 standards for lots created after 200 ft. 85 ft. shall applycxcept where small 65 ft. November 10, 2004 lot clusters40 arc allowed, R 8 standards shall apply. SETBACKS4 30 ft.,12,13 except for small lot 15 ft. for primary structure. clusters10 where R-8 standards 20 ft. for attached garages shall apply- - - - accessed from front or side lot clusters}°arc allowed, R 8 yard street. Minimum Front Yard 30 ft.s 30 ft.6 standards shall apply. Unit with Alley Access Unit with Alley Access Garage: Garage:The front yard The front yard setback of the setback of the primary primary structure may be structure may be reduced to reduced to 20 ft. if all parking is 10 ft. if all parking is provided provided in the rear yard of the in the rear yard of the lot with lot with access from a public access from a public right-of-. right-of-way or alley.6 way or alley.6 20 ft.12,13 cxccpt where 15 ft.7 for the primary structure and 20 ft. for Minimum Side Yard30 ft.7 20 ft.� small lot clustcrs1°arc allowed, attached garages which Along a Street 15 ft. is allowed in small lot access from the front and clusters10. side yard along a street. 15 combined ft.12.13 is allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard.- Minimum Side Yard 25 ft. 15 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft is allowed in small lot clusters10_ ., - - elusterslo , 25 ft. Minimum Rear Yard 35 ft. 25 ft. Where-small-lot clusteraw arc 20 ft. allewe -20 ft. is allowed in small lot clustersl0 In no case shall a structure In no case shall a structure In no case shall a structure In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude over 42 in. in height intrude over 42 in. in height intrude over 42 in. in height intrude into Clear Vision Area into the 20 ft. clear vision into the 20 ft. clear vision into the 20 ft. clear vision area the 20 ft. clear vision area area defined in RMC 4-11- area defined in RMC 4-11- defined in RMC 4-11-030. defined in RMC 4-11-030. 030. 030. 10 ft. landscaped setback Minimum Freeway 10 ft. landscaped setback 10 ft. landscaped setback from 10 ft. landscaped setback from the street property Frontage Setback from the street property line. the street property line. from the street property line. line. BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum Building 2 stories and 30 ft.for standard Height and Number of roof. Stories, except for 2 stories and 30 ft. 2 stories and 30 ft. 2 stories and 30 ft. 2 stories and 35 ft. for roofs uses having a "Public having a pitch greater than Suffix" (P) 3/12. designations Maximum Height for Wireless See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. Communication Facilities Lots 5 acres or more: 2%. An additional 5% of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Maximum Building Lotsgreater than 5,000 sq.ft.: Lots 5,000 sq.ft.or greater: Lots 10,000 sq.ft.to 5 35%a or 2,500 sq. ft., Coverage o 35% or 2,500 sq. ft.,whichever acres: 15/o. On lots greater 35% whichever is greater. (Including primary than 1 acre, an additional is greater. and accessoryLots less than 5,000 sq. ft.: 5% of the total area may be Lots 5,000 sq.ft. or less: 50%. buildings) 50%. used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq.ft. or less: 35%. -All dwelling units shall All dwelling units shall provide -All dwelling units shall Vertical Facade provide vertical facade vertical facade modulation at provide vertical facade Modulation modulation at least every least every twenty horizontal modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet(20'), feet(20'), including front, side twenty horizontal feet (20'), , including front, side and rear and rear facades when visible including front, side and rear facades when visible from a from a street. facades when visible from a street. street. Architectural features shall be Architectural features shall provided on all dwelling units. Architectural features shall be be provided on all dwelling These shall include provided on all dwelling units. units. These shall include decorative hip or gable roofs These shall include decorative decorative hip or gable roofs with a pitch equal to or hip or gable roofs with a pitch with a pitch equal to or greater than one to two (1:2), equal to or greater than one to greater than one to two (1:2), windows and doors with two (1:2), windows and doors windows and doors with decorative trim at least four with decorative trim at least decorative trim at least four Architectural inches (4") in width, and four inches (4") in width, and inches (4") in width, and Features eaves projecting at least eaves projecting at least eaves projecting at least eighteen inches (18") from eighteen inches (18")from the eighteen inches (18") from the face of the building on at face of the building on at least the face of the building on at least seventy five percent seventy five percent (75%) of least seventy five percent (75%) of the building's the building's exterior perimeter (75%)of the building's exterior perimeter with with horizontal fascia at least exterior perimeter with horizontal fascia at least ten ten inches (10") deep on all horizontal fascia at least ten inches (10") deep on all sides sides of the structure. inches (10") deep on all of the structure. sides of the structure. LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE Minimum Off-Site 5 ft. wide irrigated or drought 5 ft. wide irrigated or drought Landscaping Abutting resistant landscape strip; resistant landscape strip; Non-Arterial Public provided, that if there is provided, that if there is Streets for Plats and additional undeveloped right-of- additional undeveloped right- Short Plats Submitted way in excess of 5 ft., this shall of-way in excess of 5 ft., this on or after November also be landscaped. shall also be landscaped. 10, 2004 10 ft. wide irrigated or 10 ft. wide irrigated or drought Minimum Off-Site drought resistant landscape resistant landscape strip; Landscaping Abutting strip; provided, that if there is provided, that if there is Principal, Minor and additional undeveloped right- additional undeveloped right-of- Collector Arterial of-way in excess of 10 ft., this way in excess of 10 ft., this Streets for Plats and shall also be landscaped, shall also be landscaped, Short Plats Submitted unless otherwise determined unless otherwise determined by on or after November by the reviewing official the reviewing official during the 10, 2004 during the subdivision subdivision process. process. Minimum On-or Off- At least two (2)trees of a City- At least two (2) trees of a Site Tree approved species with a City-approved species with a Requirements for minimum caliper of 1 1/2" per minimum caliper of 1 1/2" per Plats and Short Plats tree shall be planted in the front tree shall be planted in the Submitted on or after yard or planting strip of every front yard or planting strip of November 10, 2004 lot prior to occupancy. every lot prior to occupancy. EXCEPTIONS Nothing herein shall be Nothing herein shall be Nothing herein shall be Nothing herein shall be determined to prohibit the determined to prohibit the determined to prohibit the determined to prohibit the Pre-Existing Legal construction of a single construction of a single family construction of a single family construction of a single family Lots family dwelling and its dwelling and its accessory dwelling and its accessory dwelling and its accessory accessory buildings on a buildings on a pre-existing buildings on a pre-existing legal buildings on a pre-existing • pre-existing legal lot legal lot provided that all lot provided that all setbacks, legal lot provided that all provided that all setbacks, setbacks, lot coverage, height lot coverage, height limits, setbacks, lot coverage, lot coverage, height limits, limits, infrastructure, and infrastructure, and parking height limits, infrastructure, infrastructure, and parking parking requirements for this requirements for this zone can and parking requirements for requirements for this zone zone can be satisfied and be satisfied and provisions of this zone can be satisfied can be satisfied and provisions of RMC 4-3-050, RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas, and provisions of RMC 4-3- provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas, can be met. can be met. 050, Critical Areas, can be Critical Areas, can be met. met. CRITICAL AREAS See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3- See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3- See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3- Genera) See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. 090. 090. 090. (Ord. 4869, 10-23-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004; Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) Attachment 2: Tree Retention Amended 3/9/2007 Corresponding to Ordinance Draft March 2007 CITY OF RENTIDN • ISSUE MAR 1, 2 2007 • How does the City of Renton approach tree retention now? ITYeLEVSEOF FICE • What types of standards are needed to formalize a tree retention program? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adopting code amendments that would require tree retention. The retention standard would be very close to the de facto standard that was established through a Director's Rule in March 2006. BACKGROUND SUMMARY The East Renton Plateau Citizens Task Force raised concerns directed at the City's existing tree retention policies. Citizens support a more thorough tree retention policy as a means to address quality development. Tree retention is not mandated in Renton's current development regulations. In fact, the section of code that addresses the issue is aptly titled "Tree Cutting and Land Clearing." Trees are really only required to be retained in critical areas. In the pre-Growth Management era, this seemed adequate, however, now the City is required to accept its fair share of regional growth. As development continues in Renton and surrounding communities, trees and green open spaces have been squeezed out. In most cases, developers find it easier to completely clear a parcel and retain no trees. As a result, there is very little tree canopy in areas of development. Tree retention is important for a number of reasons. Trees are part of a natural drainage system that allows for ground water recharge and prevents excessive erosion. Developed areas near stands of retained vegetation have fewer storm water concerns because of the intact natural drainage system in such areas. Stands of trees are natural buffers against noise, hot summer sun, and cold winter wind. Trees naturally reduce pollution and provide clean oxygen through the process of transpiration. They also provide habitat and are aesthetically pleasing to many. As a matter of policy, Renton broadly supports the retention of trees. Comprehensive Plan objective CD-J and Policy CD-45 stress the importance of retaining existing vegetation as part of a citywide landscaping plan. Objective EN-F and Policies EN-24 and 25 discuss the importance of maintaining natural areas to assist with storm water control. The City's 2006-2011 Business Plan Goals similarly state that in order to fulfill its goal to "manage growth through sound urban planning," the City should "uphold a high standard of design and property maintenance throughout the City." Tree retention fits neatly into the policies Renton has adopted to guide the City. While the City has broad policies supporting tree retention, and a broad authority supporting retention in code, specific implementation and standards are lacking. A Director's Rule issued in March 2006 took a major step in interpreting Renton's tree } retention policies. This rule requires an inventory of all trees 6" or larger in diameter for all land development projects. Using the inventory as a baseline, diseased and damage trees are removed and the rule states that 25 percent of the remaining trees 8" or larger must be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they are replaced at a one to one ratio. Critical areas and native growth protection easements are excluded from the retention analysis, because 100 percent retention is already required in those areas according to Renton Municipal Code. Even though the Director's Rule has been useful in establishing a baseline for tree preservation, there have been challenges in implementation. Application of the rule still involves a lot of interpretation on topics such as whether or not retained trees can count toward the landscaping requirements, or if tree retention requirements should be based on net developable area or gross developable area. There is no adequate process for the review of tree retention plans, and no authority to require third party review of tree retention plans. Recent extreme weather events have also resulted in further questions about long term retention and replacement requirements. Staff reviewed many different tree retention codes from other jurisdictions. The Director's Rule was based on tree retention code in the City of Newcastle. While there have been some implementation challenges, and additional work should be done to refine the standards in the Director's Rule, it is a system that basically works to preserve trees. The proposed changes to the tree retention code would result in a codification of the Director's Rule and the establishment of formal standards for tree retention. In the proposed code changes, the basic standard for tree retention would be 2430 percent, or 25 trees per acre, whichever is greater. All trees 6" in diameter or larger would be inventoried, with the exception of those already in critical areas, critical area buffers, proposed street right—of-ways or in native growth protection easements. Any dead, diseased, or damaged trees would be removed from the count before the-25 30percent/25 per acre standard was applied to determine the number of protected trees. Trees in proposed roadways or utility easements would be included in the calculation, and a tree could not be double-counted as both a protected tree and a street tree. In cases where tree retention cannot meet the 25 30 percent/25 per acre standard, there are options for replacement and replanting. Trees that could not be retained would be replaced at rate of twelve (12) caliper inches of trees for each tree to be replaced. Replacement trees would need to be a minimum of two (2) caliper inches. The 25 trees per acre standard acts as a minimum requirement and ensures that even a lot that has been completely cleared prior to development would be responsible for its share of future tree canopy. It eliminates a loophole that provides an incentive for the clearing, or partial clearing, of property prior to submitting development permits in attempt to avoid tree retention requirements. Replanting of trees to meet the minimum standard would use the same replacement ratio, twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees replanted for each required tree. H:\EDNSP\Title 1V\General\Tree Retention\2007\[slue Paper PC Tree Retention(March 07).docH:\EDNSP\Title I _ . •, �. , ... , .. Page2of3 41, • It is also important to remove another loophole that works against tree preservation efforts. Currently, the code exempts any lot less than half an acre in size from the tree cutting and land clearing requirements. This means that the majority of the parcels in the City could clear cut every tree on the lot. It could also result in the massive removal of retained, replaced, or replanted trees once the subdivision process was completed. As part of the proposed changes, this exemption would be lowered eliminatedto 4,500 square foot lots. • - _-• • • . • , ., .• . .- - -. • a e4ha-S-zeAll lots/parcels would be subject to the tree cutting limitations already set up in the Renton Municipal Code. This means that property owners with lots over one acre in size could remove up to six (6) healthy trees per year from their properties without a development permit. Property owners with lots between 4,500 square feet and less than an acre could remove up to three (3) healthy trees per year without a development permit. Property owners who wish to remove more trees than allowed by code would need a permit to do so. Strengthening tree retention in Renton is the goal of these code amendments. Changes are proposed to various sections of the Renton Municipal Code, such as the Landscape Regulations,Routine Vegetation Management Permit Rules, Submittal Requirements for permits, and several code definitions. These changes are all made to ensure consistency throughout the code for terminology and the application of the proposed tree retention regulations. Additional requirements have also been proposed to the section on Tree Retention to protect retained trees during grading and construction and to allow the Development Services Director the authority to ask for independent, third party review when such review is needed. These proposed changes provide a basis to ensure that the trees planned for retention remain viable through the completion of the project. CONCLUSION Given the current rate of development, much of the existing tree canopy in the City of Renton will be lost unless there are regulations in place for tree retention. This is especially important in the East Renton area, which could be annexed in the City in March, if the area favors annexation. There are several large stands of trees and pent-up demand for housing development in that area. The Director's Rule has done an adequate job of tree retention but has drawn attention to the need for codified standards for tree preservation. H:\EDNSP\'Title IV\General\Tree Retention\2007\Issue Paper PC Tree Retention(March 07).docH:\EDNSP\'Title I • .! r ! Page 3 of 3 • PROPOSED CHANGES FOR TREE RETENTION- DRAFT_March 2007 4-4-070 LANDSCAPING: D. GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Street Frontage Landscaping Required: On-site landscaping is generally required along all street frontages, with the exception of areas of pedestrian walkways and driveways. 2. Pervious Areas to Be Landscaped: Pervious areas, with the exception of critical areas, shall have landscape treatment as appropriate. Landscaping may include hardscape such as decorative paving, rock outcroppings, fountains, plant containers, etc. 3. Residential Rear/Side Yard/Landscaping Along Streets: When rear or side yards are along property lines abutting a street, there shall be a minimum five-foot(5')planting area in the public right-of-way. This will necessitate setting any future fencing back from the edge of the right-or-way so that the landscaping is visible from the street. Landscaping is required prior to occupancy. Maintenance of such areas shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). The maintenance requirement may necessitate provision of a gate in the fence to access the planting area. 4. Compliance with Zone Standards Required: See specific zone requirements listed in chapter 44=2 RMC. 5. Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements: Parking lot landscaping requirements are listed in RMC 4-4-080F7. 6. (Rep. by Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) Protected trees shall be retained in accordance with RMC 4-4-130. 7. Use of Existing Plant Material: Existing trees and other vegetation on the site of a proposed development shall be used to augment new plantings to meet the requirements of this section. why- t+sat if t•- e.. ' --- - - - - •. - -' .e - •- - a,-€xisting--Trees:--When-a survey-of-existing-trees is required-{see-RR4G_4-8-120, S mittal "� egw'�,em-eats-) -the-sufvey--er ' - -- - _ - - - - , maize; of-five 4-54 or more trees six inches-(-6E-yin-diameter - e. -. '` --- - -- - - - - - - '•e".. e thereon. b Trees to..Be-Retai.necf:-.Trees-exist+ng-.on--a...developmeot-site-that-are-to-be retained shall--be-indieated-an--the-clearing and . .. _ - - .-•- : -- -•- - the-:- .. -: _•: --.- : .• •_•-trees shall have the approximate drip line shown.-The grading-and-slearing-plan-shallmethods of -- . . - _• -- . -_- -- - -for finished - - • - -be Trees retained or replaced in accordance with the minimum requirements in RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations shall not be counted toward meeting the landscaping requirements of this section. 1 8. Use of Drought-Resistant Plants: Incorporation of drought-resistant plants into the landscape is encouraged. 9. Avoidance of Hazards: All landscaping shall be planned in consideration of the public health, safety, and welfare. a. Landscaping shall not intrude within the clear vision area at driveways and street intersections. b. Trees planted near overhead power lines shall be species that will not eventually interfere witherow into such lines. c. Landscaping shall not obscure fire hydrants or access for emergency-response vehicles. d. Avoid planting trees that may damage sidewalks. 10. Preservation of Unique Features: if practicable, uniquoUnigue features within the site shall be preserved and incorporated into the site development design (such as significant vegetation and rock outcroppings). - _ - _ •••••• . • of two percent( °. - . . - . - ._ _ .- aggregated in one portion of the : ._ . A •- - .. - •• -, : • _ . ..-• ° landscaping for adjacent propert- ._ _... . . • .. - , - - - . • - . - s-u1table .. . , • . .. _ _ . _ •- -- 2 GREEN RIVER VALLEY l•y`` L ~ 4 . ..i toli , r-t it ..4 lt`�• r` .. ... `.t kms- 441 ;' <" ��''tt\� ... .. dt! l+my _ \\\ssc . tr ,:, ,''.---,, ... ,---'. , t- I. : ),•••. 77---- ' '.,\.,-.,. _ :.,-.•-- ' , l'/ -- • .,'; ,,,,,, .',',•,:',, j_::.,,, „,,,-,-+. Till !;,' II _ ',A :,: ., , 1. t ! Lir i i f - I,N . , „ ,... ,. , .. ,,,...,... ___ , ., , _.,_____, ___-,„.... , .."..., ,„ ,, ii .P W ..�1 S*' ,V yam "---.T7-11111! - I a, iii[ . 1 , t. • ......_ I .... f'',‘ i _ \l 1 J!I a , \ _ , , - ,‘ . . . _ . ... __, , . ... . ,,i' \\ .. . s0(, .. f • ( 1 - . 1 - --('‘'.' II!'y I1 Ii ; ,' , ry,,• r f�yF �y . , f 1 ) < i. _. r < `t �� `< } . 3 1 ,,, , Arms 12. Slopes: Stripping of vegetative slopes where harmful erosion and run-off will occur shall be avoidcdprohibited. The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be developed and maintained to control against erosion. This control may consist of effective planting. The protection for the slopes shall be initiated upon completion of grading and fully installed within thirty(30) days of grading completion and prior to a request for final project approval. Where slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion-resistant character of the materials such protection may be omitted with the permission of the Public Works Department, provided that this protection is not required by the rehabilitation plan. 13. Erosion Control Devices: Where necessary, check dams, cribbing, riprap or other devices or methods shall be employed to control erosion and sediment, provide safety and control the rate of water run-off. 14. Permanent Underground Irrigation System Required: a. Underground irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained in good working order in all landscaped areas of industrial, commercial, and multi-family development, and landscaped common areas in single family subdivisions. b.The irrigation system shall provide full water coverage of the planted areas as specified in the plan. c. The irrigation system maintenance program shall include scheduled procedures for winterization. d. Exceptions: Landscape plans featuring one hundred percent(100%)drought tolerant plants or landscaping already established without irrigation systems are exempt from installation of permanent irrigation system, but drought tolerant proposals must provide supplemental moisture by means of a City-approved temporary irrigation system for a period not less than two(2) years. The applicant must provide a maintenance security device for a period of three (3)years from the date of approval of landscape installation to ensure survival of plants. H. AMENDED LANDSCAPING PLAN: 1. Modification of Landscape Plans: In the event there are significant physical elements that are discovered after preliminary plan approval that may prevent installation of the landscaping as proposed, the landscape plan may be modified upon request to the Development Services Director. Such request must be accompanied by the following: a. Copy of original, approved landscape plan. b. An amendment plan meeting requirements of RMC 4-8-120D12, Landscape Plan, detailed. c. Narrative describing and justifying proposed changes. d. Modified tree retention and land clearing plan for any protected trees proposed to be removed in accordance with RMC 4-4-130 H1 e. 2. Acceptability of Requested Modifications: The plans may be approved, denied or returned to the applicant with suggestions for changes that would make them acceptable. 4 3. Failure of Plan to Meet Intent: The Development Services Director may initiate revisions to an approved landscape plan, prior to release of an-assur--ac a surety device, if the installed landscaping has failed to meet the intent of City landscape requirements. K. DAMAGED LANDSCAPING: Upon request of the City, any landscaping required by City regulations that is damaged must be replaced with like or better landscaping as determined by the Development Services Director. See also"Specific Landscape Requirements, Trees" herein. (Ord. 3718, 3-28-1983; Ord. 4832, 3-6-2000; Ord. 4856, 8-21-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) I 4-4-130 TREE GUTTIN-G-RETENTION AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS: A. PURPOSE: IThis Section provides regulations for the clearing of land and the protection and preservation of trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants -•: _ : . .e•" -e' •. The purposes of these regulations are to: - -• 1. Preserve and enhance the City's physical and aesthetic character by minimizing indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees, shrubs,and ground cover; 2. Implement and further the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan for the environment, open space, wildlife habitat, vegetation, resources, surface drainage, watersheds, and economics; such as condition(e.g., diseasedanger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed 54. Promote land development practices that result in minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the City while at the same time recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease. danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services,protection of scenic views, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; 65. Minimize surface water and groundwater runoff and diversion, and aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation, and minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the destabilization of soils; 76. Retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protections;and to reduce air pollution by producing pure oxygen from carbon dioxide. 5 • --- - - .•_ - ---_ -- .. - -- - - - - --- - -- ' - - cafbon--dioxide:(Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) 7. Protect trees during construction activities from damage to tree roots, trunks. and branches. 8. Recognize that trees increase real estate values. B. APPLICABILITY: The regulations of this Section apply to any developed, partially developed or undeveloped property where land development or routine vegetation management activities are undertaken. (Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) C. ALLOWABLEALLOWEDTREE CUT-TING-REMOVAL ACTIVITIES: Tree o tting--removal and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows, except as provided in subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas, and in RMC 4=3- 110E5b, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. 1. Emergency Situations: Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the City and/or public or private utility in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. 2. Dead, Dangerous, or Diseased Trees: Removal of dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or dangerous ground cover or trees which have been certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, selection of whom to be approved by the City based on the type of information required, or the removal of which is approved by the City. 3. Maintenance Activities/Essential Tree Removal-Public or Private Utilities, Roads and Public Parks: Maintenance activities including routine vegetation management and essential tree removal for public and private utilities, road rights-of-way and easements, and public parks. 4. Installation of SEPA Exempt Public or Private Utilities: Installation of distribution lines by public and private utilities; provided, that such activities are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act and RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. 5. Existing and Ongoing Agricultural Activities: Clearing associated with existing and ongoing agricultural activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, Definitions. 6. Commercial Nurseries or Tree Farms: RemovalClear-ing or.cutting_of only those trees which are planted and growing on the premises of a licensed retailer or wholesaler. 7. Public Road Expansion: Expansion of public roads, unless critical areas would be affected, in which case see subsections C12 and C13 of this Section. 8. Site Investigative Work: Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities including the use of mechanical equipment to perform site investigative work provided the work is conducted in accordance with the following requirements: 6 a. Investigative work should not disturb any more than five percent(5%) of any protected sensitive area described in subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas, on the subject property. In every case, impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas restored. b. In every location where site investigative work is conducted, disturbed areas shall be minimized, and immediately restored. c.A notice shall be posted on the site by the property owner or owner's agent indicating that site investigative work is being conducted, and that the work must minimize disturbance to the critical areas identified in subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas. d. No site investigative work shall commence without first notifying the Director or his or her designee in advance. 9. Allowable Minor Tree Gt#tingRemoval Activities: Except as provided in subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas. tree removalTree cutting and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows. - -e . _ •- -- _ e- . .. !• . _ - **-* _ __-z - _ - •_ _ .. la.-_No more than three(3)trees are removed in any twelve(12) month period from a property under thirty five thousand (35,000)square feet in size; and No more than six(6)trees are removed in any twelve(12) month period from a property thirty five thousand (35,000)square feet and greater in size. LOT TYPES ij ri• M t LLy • l DEVELOPED, t UNDEVELOPED + :• L. "F"'"""*" "••"...'"4 .. ILIVELOPE ��..� c.li+ Rights-of-Way Unobstructed: In conducting minor tree cuttingremoval activities, rights-of-way shall not be obstructed unless a right-of-way use permit is obtained 10. Landscaping or Gardening Permitted: Land clearing in conformance with the provisions of subsection C9,Allowable-. Allowed Minor Tree GuttingRemoval Activities, and subsection D2 of this Section, 7 Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted s- - s. s- .-doped or undeveloped let for purposes of landscaping or gardening; provided, that no mechanical equipment is used. 11. Operational Mining/Quarrying: Land clearing and tree cuttingremoval associated with previously approved, operational mining and quarrying activities. 12. Modification of Existing Utilities and Streets • = - - ' - • ••• -• ': _ - 05QC7) by Ten Percent(10%) or Less: See RMC 4 3 050C for conditions. 13. Utilities, Traffic Control,Walkways, Bikeways Within Existing, Improved Right-of- Way or Easements: Within existing improved public road rights-of-way or easements, installation, construction, replacement, operation, overbuilding, or alteration of all natural gas, cable, communication, telephone and electric facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances, traffic control devices, illumination, walkways and bikeways. If activities exceed the existing improved area or the public right-of-way, this exemption does not apply. Where applicable, Rrestoration of disturbed areas shall be completed. (Ord. 4851, 8-27-2000; Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) D. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: 1. Prohibited Activities: There shall be no tree cutting removal or land clearing on any site for the sake of preparing that site for future development unless a land development permit,, as defined in RMC 4-8-120 D 12 for the site has been approved by the City. 2. Restrictions for Critical Areas—General: Unless exempted by critical areas, RMC 4=3- 05005 or Shoreline Master Program regulations, RMC 4-3-090, no tree cuttingremoval, or land clearing, or groundcover management is permitted: a. On portions of property with protected critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-050K; streams and lakes, per RMC 4-3-050L; Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090, Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC 4-3-050M; and their associated buffers; b. On protected slopes except as allowed in this Section or in the Critical Areas Regulation, RMC 4-3-050; or c. Areas classified as very high landslide hazards, except as allowed in this Section or in the Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-3-050. Buffer..requirements-shahbe-eonsistent with-the ccitical....area regulations_-.Tree-eutttng-or land clearing.shalt be-consistent with—established—native growth._prateetion...area..requirements.of RUC-4-3-050E4: 3. Restrictions for Native Growth Protection Areas: Tree cutting-removal or land clearing shall not be permitted within a Native Growth Protection Easement except as provided in the established native growth protection area requirements of RMC 4-3-050E4. -be-consistent w+th_.established...native growth-protection}-area requirements-of RMC...4-3-050E.4.(Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) E CRPRET^TIONREVIEW AUTHORITY: 8 1. Authority and Interpretation: The _' .' e-. _. -- - . _ p . _ DireetorReviewing Offical, : _- - -. _ ' : epresentative, is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. He or she is authorized require retention above the minimum standards, to require phasing of tree retention plan, or to require any other measures to meet the purpose of this section. (Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) 2. Independent Secondary Review: The Reviewing Official may require independent review of any land use application that involves tree removal and land clearing at the City's discretion. An evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's analysis on the effectiveness of any proposed removal, retention, or replacement measures. to include recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense and the City shall select the third party review professional. F. PERMITS REQUIRED: 1. Land Development Permit: An approved land development permit, as defined in RMC 4- 8-120 D 12, is required in order to conduct tree cutting removal or land clearing on any site for the sake of preparing that site for future development. 2. Permit Required for Routine Vegetation Management on Undeveloped Properties: Any person who performs routine vegetation management, as defined in RMC 4-11-180, on undeveloped property in the City must obtain a routine vegetation management permit prior to performing such work. 3. Permit Required to Use Mechanical Equipment: Except where use of mechanical equipment is specifically listed as exempt, any person who uses mechanical equipment for routine vegetation management, land clearing, tree cuttingremoval, landscaping, or gardening on developed, partially developed or undeveloped property must obtain a routine vegetation management permit prior to performing such work. 4. Timber Stand Maintenance—Conditional Use Permit Required: While timber harvesting shall not be permitted until such time as a valid land development is approved, a request may be made for maintenance and thinning of existing timber stands to promote the overall health and growth of the stand. Permits allowing maintenance and thinning beyond the limits allowed in subsections subsection C9 of this Section, Allowable Minor Tree Gutting Removal Activities, shall be considered as a conditional use permit by the Hearing Examiner according to the following criteria in lieu of standard conditional use permit criteria: a. Appropriate approvals have been sought and obtained with the State Department of Natural Resources; and b. The activity shall improve the health and growth of the stand and maintain long-term alternatives for preservation of trees; and c. The activity shall meet the provisions of subsections H2, Applicability, Performance Standards and Alternates, and H3, General Review Criteria, of this Section; and d. Thinning activities shall be limited to less than forty percent(40%) of the volume and trees. 5. Tree Cutting-Removal—Solar Access or Pasture Land: A routine vegetation management permit is required for tree cutting-removal in greater amounts than specified under partially exempt actions in subsection C9 of this Section, Allowable Minor Tree Gutting 9 arr.. • Removal Activities, for any property where tree cutting removal is proposed without an associated land development permit. A routine vegetation management permit may be issued allowing tree cuttingremoval only in the following cases: a. For purposes of allowing solar access to existing structuressolar energy panels, or to structures that specifically incorporate solar energy in to the building design; or b. To create pasture land where agricultural activities are permitted uses in the zone. Any tree cutting removal activities shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose, and shall be consistent with subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas. (Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) G. ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS: Permits for routine vegetation management shall be processed consistent with RMC 4-9-195, Routine Vegetation Management Permits. (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) H. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT/BUILDING PERMITS: 1. Protected Trees- Retention Required: Trees shall be retained as follows: a. Damaged and diseased trees excluded: Trees that are damaged or diseased or are safety risks due to root. trunk, or crown structure failure shall not be counted as protected trees. b. Residential: i. RC, R-1, R-4 and R-8 zones: Thirty percent (30%) of the trees, or a minimum of twenty five(25) trees per acre, which ever is greater, shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. ii. All other residential zones: Ten percent (10%) of the trees, or a minimum of ten (10) trees per acre, which ever is greater, shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. c. Industrial and Commercial: Five percent of the trees located on the lot, excluding critical areas or their buffers shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. Critical areas and their buffers shall be excluded from this calculation. but trees in proposed street right of ways and easements shall be counted. If the number to be retained includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or greater than one-half tree (1/2)shall be rounded up; d. Utility uses and mineral extraction uses: such operations shall be exempt from the protected tree retention requirements of this chapter if removal can be justified in writing and approved by the Reviewing Official.; e. Replacement Requirements: i. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two inch (2")caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve (12)caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed; ii. When a tree or tree cluster that is part of an approved tree retention plan cannot be retained, mitigation shall be required per subsection i. above. 10 iii. Trees used to meet these replacement requirements may not be counted toward the required landscaping requirements in RMC 4-4-070 Landscaping or RMC 4-2- 110. RMC 4-2-120; or RMC 4-2-130 Zoning Standards Tables. iv. Unless replacement trees are being used as part of an enhancement project in a critical area or buffer, they shall not consist of any species listed in RMC 4-4-130 H7d. f. Replanting Requirements: Residential sites that can not meet the minimum requirement of 25 trees per acre, as specified in RMC 4-4-130 H1 b, shall be replanted according to the replacement requirements in RMC 4-4-130 Hie g. iii. Tree retention standards shall be applied to the net developable area. Land within critical areas and their buffers, as well as public right-of-ways, shall be excluded from the above calculation. If the number to be retained includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or greater than one-half tree(112)shall be rounded up; 2. Plan Required: When a land development permit, as defined in RMC 4-8-120 D12, is submitted to the City it shall be accompanied by a tree cutting removaland land clearing plan. -- - •_ _ ... - - - - _ -- _• ite due - . - --- - _ .. •-- -the plan shall be indicated on the plan. Trees shall be shown on •- : .- - _ _ : • .°: - • - -- ..•°4, high or . ••_ : .•: ..e. erosion hazard areas. •- - • • - e: - .-•- - • -- - percent(40%)or greater, very high . . .. •_• • '.'_ A . 1.1-., _. . -Exemptions c.Show all trees to be retained in critical area buffers. -- ... . . . .. • • -: - --- . :•: .. of development. e:- In all other areas of the site, trees to be cut may be Indic. -: :-•- . • - i+m-it-lines. (Am:. e _ ••: - - !! ; e _. - .7-,--4 25 2005) 23. Applicability, Performance Standards and Alternates: All land clearing and tree cutting removal activities shall conform to the criteria and performance standards set forth in this Section unless otherwise recommended in an approved soil engineering, engineering geology, hydrology or forest management plan and where the alternate procedures will be equal to or superior in achieving the policies of this Section. All land clearing and tree cuttingremoval activities may be conditioned to ensure that the standards, criteria, and purpose of this Section are met. 11 34. General Review Criteria: All land clearing and tree cuttingremoval activities shall comply with RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations, and shall meet the following criteria: a. The land clearing and tree cutting removal will not create or significantly contribute to landslides, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence or hazards associated with strong ground motion and soil liquefaction. b. The land clearing and tree cuttingremoval will not create or significantly contribute to flooding, erosion, or increased turbidity, siltation or other form of pollution in a watercourse. c. Land clearing and tree cuttingremoval will be conducted to maintain or provide visual screening and buffering between land uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and setback provisions of the Renton Municipal Code. d. Land clearing and tree cuttingremoval shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time, consistent with an approved build-out schedule and including any necessary erosion control measures. e. Land clearing and tree cuttingremoval shall be consistent with subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas, and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. f. Retained trees will not create or contribute to a hazardous condition as the result of blowdown, insect or pest infestation. disease, or other problems that may be created as a result of selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot. a. Ability to Condition Plan: The City may require a modification of the land clearing andtree __ _ _ -- - _ - ._ • - e .• - -• •- - e•ef the maximum number of trees. condition a proposal - - _ .. •_ _.• - . - , _• e . ...- consistent - , . .-consistent with the permitted density and • . •- 66. Timing: The City may restrict the timing of the land clearing and tree cuttingremoval activities to specific dates and/or seasons when such restrictions are necessary for the public health, safety and welfare, or for the protection of the environment. 66. Restrictions for Critical Areas: See subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas—General, and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. 77. Tree/Ground Cover Retention: The following measures may be used by the Department •• • - - - e --Reviewing Official in conditioning a land development permit or building permit proposal : -. _ _ _ -- • - - . , to comply with the general review criteria of subsection H3H4:- 12 a. Trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing. The Reviewing Official may require modification of the tree retention and land clearing plan, or the associated land development permits, to ensure the retention of the maximum number of trees. b. The City-Reviewing Official may require and/or altow-the applicant to relocate or replace trees, provide interim erosion control, hydroseed exposed soils, or other similar conditions which would implement the intent of this Section. c. Priority shall be given to retention of trees on sensitive slopes and on lands classified as ha. -: - _ _ r , . _ .4.• hazards as classified in the critical afeas regulations. dc. Where feasible, treesTrees that shelter interior trees or trees on abutting properties from strong winds that could otherwise cause them to blow down should be retained. ed. Except in critical areas or their buffers, unless enhancement activities are being performed, the removal of trees on the following list should be allowed in order to avoid invasive root systems, weak wood prone to breakage, or varieties which tend to harbor insect pests: i. All Populus species including cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), lombardy poplar(Populus nigra"Italica"), etc. ii. All Alnus species which includes red alder(Alnus oregona), black alder(Alnus glutinosa), white alder(Alnus rhombifolia), etc. iii. Salix species which includes weeping willow(Salix babylonica), etc.,unle"s along iv. All Platanus species which include London plane tree(Platanus acerifolia), American sycamore, buttonwood (Platanus occidentalis), etc. 88. Protection Measures During Construction: Tree Protection-Measures:-Protection measures in this subsections H8b(i)through H8b(vi) of this Section shall apply for all trees whish-thgt are to be retained in areas immediately subject to construction._ - -. - •-- • _ _ _ 4. ..• _ _ • • Modification Procedures, individuaity-of-severally by the City if the developer demonstrates them to be inapplicable to the specific 041 site conditions or if the intent of the regulations will be im emented by another means with the same result. b. Drip Line: All of the following tree protection measures shall apply: ia.Construction storage prohibited: -The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces,or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. iib. Fenced protection area required: The applicant shall erect and maintain six-foot- high chainlinkand maintain rope barriers, temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. -er - -- -- - - - - - - ••- - - - _ -. . Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet(50') indicating the words. "NO TRESPASSING- Protected 13 • Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. + c. Protection from grade changes: If the grade level adjoining to a tree to be retained is to be raised, the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be equal to the tree's drip line. wvd. Impervious surfaces prohibited within the drip line: The applicant may not install impervious surface material within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ve. Restrictions on grading within the drip lines of retained trees: The grade level around any tree to be retained may not be lowered within the greater of the following areas: (1) the area defined by the drip line of the tree, or(2)an area around the tree equal to one and a half feet(1 1/2')foot in diameter for each one inch of tree caliper. The Reviewing Official may require a larger tree protection zone based on tree size, species, soil, or other conditions. vif. Mulch layer required: All areas within the required fencing shall be covered completely and evenly with a minimum of three inches(3") of bark mulch prior to installation of the protective fencing. Exceptions may be approved by the Reviewing Official if the mulch will adversely affect protected groundcover plants. g. Monitoring required during construction:The applicant shall retain a professional arborist or a other qualified professional to prune branches and roots,fertilize, and water as appropriate for any trees and ground cover which are to be retained. (Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) h Alternative protection: Alternative safeguards may be used if determined by the Reviewing Official to provide equal or greater tree protection. 9. Maintenance a. All retained trees, including protected trees, shall be maintained for the life of the project: b. All retained trees and vegetation shall be pruned and trimmed to maintain a healthy growing condition or to prevent limb failure: c. With the exception of dead. diseased, or damaged trees specifically retained to provide wildlife habitat; other dead, diseased, damaged or stolen planting shall be replaced within three months or during the next planting season if the loss does not occur in a planting season; 10. Bonds/security a. Performance bonds or other appropriate security(including letters of credit and set aside letters) shall be required for a period of three years after the planting or transplanting of vegetation to ensure proper installation, establishment, and maintenance. b. Performance bonds or other appropriate security(including letters of credit and set aside letters)may be required if protected trees are damaged, but remain in acceptable condition, for a period of time related to the damage caused, as determined by the Reviewing Official. 14 I. VARIANCE PROCEDURES: The Hearing€x-amines-Reviewing Official shall have the authority to grant variances from the provisions of this Section pursuant to RMC 4-8-070H and the decision criteria in RMC 4-9-250. (Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) IJI. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: 1. Penalties: Penalties for any violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall be in accord with RMC 1-3-2. In a prosecution under this Section, each tree removed, damaged or I destroyed will constitute a separate violation, and the monetary penalty for each violated-tree ion shall be no less than the minimum penalty, and no greater than the maximum penalty of RMC 1-3-2D. 2. Additional Liability for Damage: In addition, any person who violates any provision of this Section or of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. 3. Restoration Required: The City may require replacement of all improperly removed ground cover with species similar to those which were removed or other approved species such that the biological and habitat values will be replaced. Restoration shall include installation and maintenance of interim and emergency erosion control measures that shall be required as determined by the City. 4. Replacement Required: The City may require, for each tree that was improperly cut and/or removed in violation of, or without, an approved tree retention and land clearing plan, replacement planting of a tree of equal size, quality and species or up to three (3)trees of the same species in the immediate vicinity of the tree(s)that was/were removed. The replacement trees will be of sufficient caliper to adequately replace the lost tree(s)or, and at a minimum of three two inches(32") in caliper. 5. Stop Work: For any parcel on which trees and/or ground cover are improperly removed and subject to penalties under this Section, the City shall stop work on any existing permits and halt the issuance of any or all future permits or approvals until the property is fully restored in compliance with this Section and all penalties are paid. (Ord. 4219, 6-5-1989; Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION —GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater 15 • supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation.This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. B ACTION NOT A TAKING: No action taken herein shall constitute a taking under the laws or constitution of the State or Federal government. C ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%)or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) 2. Native Growth Protection Area Easement and Minimum Lot Size: Native growth protection area easements may be included in the minimum lot size of lots created through the subdivision process; provided, that the area of the lot outside of the easement is sufficient to allow for adequate buildable area and yards. (Ord.4835, 3-27-2000) 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retentions: Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3 27 2000)Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. 16 • c. Culverting: The piping or tunnelingof water shall be discouraged and allowed onlywhen P�p� 9 9 going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) TABLE 4-8-120 A Line under Submittal Requirements:Tree Cutti-ng Removal/Inventory/ Land Clearing Plan- Approved TABLE 4-8-120 B Line under Submittal Requirements:Tree CuttingRemoval/ Inventory/Land Clearing Plan- Approved TABLE 4-8-120C Submittal Requirement-Tree Cutt-ingRetentionNegetation Plan TYPE OF APPLICATION/PERMIT Annexation(10%Notice of Intent) Annexation(60%Petition) Appeal Business License for Home Occupation Comp.Plan Map Amendment/Rezone Comp.Plan Text Amendment Conditional Approval Permit for a Nonconforming Structure Conditional Approval Permit for a Nonconforming Use 4 Conditional Use Permit(Administrative) 4 Conditional Use Permit(Hearing Examiner) 4 Environmental Review Environmental Review(Nonproject) 4 Grade and Fill Permit(Special) Kennel License Kennel License,Hobby Lot Line Adjustment 4 Master Site Plan(Overall) 4 Master Site Plan(Individual Phases)) 4 Mobile Home Park,Preliminary 4 Mobile Home Park,Final Modification/Alternate Request I 4 Plat,Final 4 Plat,Preliminary/Binding Site Plan 4 PUD,Preliminary 4 PUD,Final Rebuild Approval Permit for a Nonconforming Structure Rebuild Approval Permit for a Nonconforming Use Rezone 4 Routine Vegetation Management Permit Shoreline Exemption 4 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 4 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit 4 Shoreline Variance 4 Short Plat,Preliminary I 4 Short Plat,Final/Binding Site Plan 4 Site Plan 4 Special Permit 4 Temporary Use Permit Variance Waiver I 4 Critical Area Permit 17 • 7. Definitions G: Grading Plan: A twenty two inch by thirty four inch (22"x 34")plan drawn by a State of Washington licensed landscape architect at a scale of one inch to forty feet(1"to 40') (horizontal feet)and one inch to ten feet(1"to 10')(vertical feet)(or other size plan sheet or scale approved by the Development Service Division Plan Review Supervisor)clearly indicating the following: a. Graphic scale and north arrow. b. Dimensions of all property lines, easements, and abutting streets, c. Location and dimension of all on-site structures and the location of any structures within fifteen feet(15')of the subject property or which may be affected by the proposed work, d. Accurate existing and proposed contour lines drawn a five foot(5'), or less, intervals showing existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage to include surrounding off-site contours within one hundred feet(100')of the site, e. Location of natural drainage system, including perennial and intermittent streams, the presence of bordering vegetation, and flood plains. f. Setback areas and any areas not be disturbed, including the location: size and species of all protected trees on site. Protected trees shall have the approximate drip line shown. The method of tree protection during grading and construction shall be shown. If grade changes in the vicinity of the protected trees are necessary; the method of reconciling the drop line with the finished elevation shall be included (see RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations): g. Finished contours drawn at five foot(5') intervals as a result of grading, h. Proposed drainage channels and related construction with associated underground storm lines sized and connections shown, and i. General notes addressing the following(may be listed on the cover sheet): i. Area in square feet of the entire property. ii. Area of work in square feet. iii. Both the number of tons and cubic yards of soil to be added, removed, or relocated. iv. Type and location of fill origin, and destination of any soil to be removed from site. v. Finished floor elevation(s)of all structures, existing and proposed. 12. Definitions L: 18 Landscaping Plan, Conceptual: A fully dimensioned plan, prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, drawn at the same scale as the project site plan (or other scale approved by the Reviewing Official), clearly indicating the following: a. Date, graphic scale, and north arrow, b. Location of proposed buildings, parking areas, access and existing buildings to remain, c. Names and locations of abutting streets and public improvements, including easements, d. Existing and proposed contours at five foot(5') intervals or less, e. Location and size, and purpose of planting areas, including those required in RMC 4- 4-070 Landscaping; f. Location and height for proposed berming, g. Location and elevations for any proposed landscape-related structures such as arbors, gazebos, fencing, etc., and h. Location, size, spacing and names of existing and proposed shrubs, trees, ground covers, and decorative rockery or like landscape improvements in relationship to proposed and existing utilities.-(Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) i. The location, size and species of all protected trees on site. Protected trees shall have the approximate drip line shown (see RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations). Landscaping Plan, Detailed: A fully dimensioned plan, prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, drawn at the same scale as the project site plan (or other scale approved by the Reviewing Official), clearly indicating the following: a. Date, graphic scale, and north arrow, b. Location of proposed buildings, property lines, walks, parking areas, and access, and existing buildings to remain, c. Names and locations of abutting streets and public improvements, including easements, d. Existing and proposed contours at five-foot(5') intervals or less, e. Detailed grading plan, f. Location,and dimensions, and purpose of all planting areas (the width of a landscaping area when curbed shall be measured from inside to inside of the curbs),-including those required in RMC 4-4-070 Landscaping; g. Location and height for proposed berming, 19 h. Locations, elevations, and details for any proposed landscape-related structures such as arbors, gazebos, fencing, etc., i. Location, size, spacing and names of existing and proposed shrubs, trees, ground covers, and decorative rockery or like landscape improvements in relationship to proposed and existing utilities, j. The location, size and species of all protected trees on site. Protected trees shall have the approximate drip line shown (see RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations). jk. Names of existing and proposed vegetation, and kl. Detailed planting plan (soil mix, planting depth and width, and bark mulch depth). (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) 21. DEFINITIONS T Tree Cutti gRetention/Land Clearing(Tree Inventory) Plan: A full dimensional plan, drawn by a professional arborist, landscape architect, or other similarly qualified professional. based on finished grade, drawn to at the same scale as the project site plan with the northern property line at the top of the paper clearly showing the following: a.All property boundaries and adjacent streets, b. Location of all areas proposed to be cleared, c. Types-Species and sizes of vegetation to be removed, altered or retained and-:the boundaries and predominant species of stands of trees consisting of five (5)or more trees. This requirement applies only to trees, six inch (6")caliper, °at-c43esftevel"....and larger fifty-four inches (54")above grade, and the location, size and species of all protected trees on the site. d. Future building sites and drip lines of any trees which will overhang/overlap a construction line, and e. Location and dimensions of rights-of-way, utility lines, fire hydrants, street lighting, and easements. f. Where the drip line of a tree overlaps an area where construction activities will occur, this shall be indicated on the plan. q. For allowed activities, including allowed exemptions, modifications. and variances, show all trees proposed to be removed in priority tree retention areas: slopes twenty five percent(25%)to thirty nine percent(39%), high or very high landslide areas, and high erosion hazard areas. h. Show trees to be removed in protected critical areas: wetlands. Shorelines of the State, streams and lakes,floodways, floodplain slopes forty percent(40%)or greater, very high landslide hazard areas, and critical habitat if the activity is exempt or allowed by the critical areas regulations in RMC 4-3-05005, Specific Exemptions. 20 4 i. Show all trees to be retained in critical area buffers. j. In all other areas of the site, trees to be removed may be indicated generally with clearing limit lines except for protected trees. The location, size, and species of all protected trees on a site shall be shown. The plan shall also show the planned replacement trees in accordance with RMC 4-4-130-H1e and any planned replanting areas in accordance with RMC 4-4-130- H1f. (Amd. Ord. 4963. 5-13-2002; Ord. 5137, 4- 25-2005) 4-9-195 ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMITS: A. PURPOSE: This Section provides a permit process for routine vegetation management implementing the tree Icutting retention and land clearing regulations in RMC 4-4-130. B. AUTHORITY: The City's Development Services Division Director, or his duly authorized representative, is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. C. APPLICABILITY, EXEMPTIONS, AND PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: 1. General Applicability: The regulations of this Section apply to any developed, partially developed or undeveloped property where routine vegetation management activities are undertaken. a. Permit Required for Routine Vegetation Management on Undeveloped Properties: Any person who performs routine vegetation management on undeveloped property in the City must obtain a routine vegetation management permit prior to performing such work. b. Permit Required to Use Mechanical Equipment: Except where use of mechanical equipment is specifically listed as exempt, any person who uses mechanical equipment for routine vegetation management, land clearing, tree cuttingremoval, landscaping, or gardening on developed, partially developed or undeveloped property must obtain a routine vegetation management permit prior to performing such work. c. Tree CuttingRemoval—Solar Access or Pasture Land: A routine vegetation management permit is required for tree cuttingremoval in greater amounts than specified under partially exempt actions in RMC 4-4-130C2, Allowable Tree CuttingRemoval Activities, for any property where tree cuttingremoval is proposed without an associated land development permit. A routine vegetation management permit may be issued allowing tree cuttingremoval only in the following cases: i. For purposes of allowing solar access to existing structures; or 21 ii.To create pasture land where agricultural activities are permitted uses in the zone. Any tree cuttingremoval activities shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose, and shall be consistent with RMC 4-4-130D2, Restrictions for Critical Areas. 2. Exemptions: Refer to RMC 4-4-130C. 3. Prohibited Activities: Refer to RMC 4-4-130D. D. PROCEDURES AND REVIEW CRITERIA: Permits for routine vegetation management shall be processed as follows: 1. Submittal: An application for a routine vegetation management permit shall be submitted to the Development Services Division together with any necessary fees as required in chapter 44=1 RMC. 2. Information Required: A routine vegetation management permit application shall contain the information requested in RMC 4-8-120, Submittal Requirements—Specific to Application Type. 3.Time: The permit shall be reviewed administratively within a reasonable period of time. 4. Routine Vegetation Management Permit Conditions: The routine vegetation management permit may be denied or conditioned by the City to restrict the timing and extent of activities in order to further the intent of this Section including: a. Preserve and enhance the City's aesthetic character and maintain visual screening and buffering. b. Preserve habitat to the greatest extent feasible. c. Prevent landslides, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence hazards. d. Minimize the potential for flooding, erosion, or increased turbidity, siltation or other form of pollution in a watercourse. e. Ensure that the proposal will be consistent with RMC 4-4-130D2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, and D3, Restrictions for Critical AreasNative Growth Protection Areas— Routine Vegetation Management Permits. f. Ensure that protected trees are retained, consistent with RMC 4-4-130 H. 5. Time Limits for Routine Vegetation Management Permits: Any permit for routine vegetation management shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance. An extension may be granted by the Development Services Division for a period of one year upon application by the property owner or manager. Application for such an extension must be made at least thirty(30)days in advance of the expiration of the original permit and shall include a statement of justification for the extension. E. APPEALS: 22 Appeal of the decision to grant, grant with conditions, or deny a routine vegetation management permit shall be made consistent with RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. F.VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Unless otherwise specified, violations of this Section are misdemeanors subject to RMC 1-3-1. (Ord.4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5159, 10-17-2005) 4-11-210 DEFINITIONS T TREE: A -et t•- ••••• -• -•: ••.• . : .• - aad having-asaliperof-six-inches{6°}er-gfeater,or-a-mufti-stem ed tr-unk--system-with-adefinitely formed-crown: A self-supportying woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, with a potential minimum trunk diameter at maturity of two inches (2") and a potential minimum height of ten feet (10'). TREE G1-TTINGREMOVAL: The actual removal of the above ground plant material of a tree through chemical, manual or mechanical methods. 23 Attachment 3: Animal Regulations ���ON MAR 1, 2 2007 ISSUE RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE • Should the City change the maximum allowable number of large animals per acre under the animal husbandry land use? • Should the determination for the conditional use of greater than the maximum number of allowed animals be changed from the Hearing Examiner to an Administrative Conditional Use? • Should the City strike the language regarding animal replacement and transferability, effectively allowing residents to replace animals and allow the use of property for animal husbandry to run with the land? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adopting code amendments that would allow two large animals per acre and the conditional use of greater number of animals to be determined by administrative decision to allow animal replacement and allow animal husbandry land use to remain an accepted use upon sale of the property. These changes reflect recommendations of the East Renton Plateau Citizens Task Force and better reflect the current animal husbandry practices that are occurring in the East Renton area. BACKGROUND SUMMARY Through the East Renton Plateau Citizens Task Force and comments at public meetings regarding the East Renton Plateau, an issue with City of Renton policy and standards for the number of animals allowable for animal husbandry with large animals was brought forward. Current City policy limits the number of large animals to one animal per acre. A point of concern regarding the welfare of large animals, which tend to be herd animals, was made. Additionally, it was expressed that the current City policy simply encourages residents to be non-compliant until such time that they are notified that they are not in compliance with City code. Currently, City code requires a Hearing Examiner public hearing in order to seek permission to keep greater than the allowable number of animals for animal husbandry. It was expressed that this adds a layer of inconvenience and cost to animal owners as they seek to comply with City Code and obtain a conditional use permit if they have more animals than the stated maximum animals. Further, the costs associated with appealing to the Hearing Examiner may discourage residents from following City code. The process and costs related to obtaining an Administrative Conditional Use is simplified and costs less for citizens. The section of code regarding non-conforming uses for the keeping of animals has a clause that does not allow animal replacement for grandfathered animals. It was expressed that this policy simply encourages animal owners to circumvent City policy by claiming that replacement animals are in fact the original animal. Elimination of this H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Multiple Zone Amends\Residential\issue paper animal regulations.doc Page 1 of 2 .4 w clause better accommodates animal owners and the historical use of their land for animal husbandry. The non-conforming use section also has a clause that does not allow a non- conforming use to remain with the property on which the use is occurring if the property is sold. This policy is not necessarily appropriate for lower density areas that have a history of land use with animal husbandry; it may unduly place higher density land use standards on such an area. CONCLUSION City of Renton code regarding animal husbandry is perceived as unfair. Amending code to allow two large animals per acre would demonstrate a better understanding of the nature of herd animals and the keeping of such animals. The East Renton Plateau is a Potential Annexation Area with a significant amount of lower density, R-4 and R-1, land use. If the area votes in favor of annexation, it is likely that many residents would not wish to be required to change their lifestyle and the historical use of their property for the purposes of animal husbandry. Amending the code to better accommodate this type of lower density land use is appropriate. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Multiple Zone Amends\Residential\issue paper animal regulations.doc Page 2 of 2 4-4-010 STANDARDS AND REVIEW CRITERIA FOR KEEPING ANIMALS: A. PURPOSE AND INTENT: Since the nature of growth generates greater competition by both humans and animals for available space, it is imperative that growth and the keeping of animals be located appropriately and managed effectively to ensure compatibility and harmony. In particular, animals need to be monitored to lessen the impacts of noise, odor, and potential nuisance not only on-site but more particularly to adjacent properties. Animal owners keep their animals for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, companionship, affection and protection. In order that the keeping of animals may coexist harmoniously with adjacent and abutting uses, regulations are necessary. B. AUTHORITY: 1. Responsibility: Responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of this Section shall be as follows: a. Animal Control Officer: All those matters related to care, maintenance, and individual licensing. b. Development Services Division:All those matters concerning land use and zoning. Any doubt regarding responsibility will be administratively determined. C. APPLICABILITY: The keeping of animals by an owner/tenant where permitted in the zoning districts shall comply with the requirements of this Section. These regulations shall apply to existing and future cases where an owner/tenant is keeping animals. D. EXEMPTIONS: Household pets as defined in RMC 4-11-160 are a permitted use in all zones in the City and as such are not regulated by this Section provided they number three (3) or less. (Amd. Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003) s. E. PROHIBITED ANIMALS: See RMC 6-6-12. F. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING ANIMALS: 1. Residence: It is assumed that an animal owner either lives on the property where an animal is kept or has arranged with a tenant to care for the animal. 2. Shelter Location: Shelter shall be provided in clean structures located a minimum of twenty five feet(25') from any property line unless otherwise specified in RMC 4-4- 010G and H, Additional Requirements for Hobby Kennels(Four(4) to Eight(8) Animals), or Additional Requirements for Kennels (Nine (9)or More Animals). Private barns and stables shall be located a minimum of fifty feet(50')from any property line. All structures, corrals, feeding, exercising, training, riding or other facilities associated with commercial horse and pony boarding, riding stables, and schools shall be located a minimum of fifty feet(50')from any property line. 3. Confinement: All animals shall be kept and maintained in a manner which confines their movement and activity to the premises of the owner/tenant. 4. Health and Safety: All animals shall be kept in such a manner so as not to create any objectionable noise, odor, or otherwise cause to annoy or become a public nuisance to the health, safety or general welfare of any person. 5.Animal Waste: Animal waste shall be properly disposed of, and any accumulated animal waste must not be stored within the shelter setback area. Steps must be taken to minimize odor and the potential for the infestation of insects or the spread of disease. Any storage of animal waste must not constitute a nuisance as defined in chapter 1-3 RMC. 6. Fencing: Electric and barbed wire fences may be used to confine animals provided the conditions of RMC 4-4-040, Fences and Hedges, are met. G. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOBBY KENNELS (FOUR (4) TO EIGHT (8) ANIMALS): 1. Fencing Required:All open-run areas shall be surrounded by a six foot(6')fence located a minimum of ten feet(10')from all property lines. 2.Waste Removal: Provision shall be made for the removal of animal and food wastes, to keep the kennel free from the infestation of insects or rodents or disease, and from obnoxious or foul odors. 3. Shelter Location: Shelter shall be provided in clean structures located only in the rear yard unless the Development Services Division, based upon information provided by an owner/tenant, determines that a side yard would be a better location for the shelter. The shelter shall be located ten feet(10') from side and rear property lines. 4. Hobby Kennel License:A hobby kennel license is required per RMC 4-9-100. H. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR KENNELS (NINE (9) OR MORE ANIMALS): 1. Shelter: Shelter shall be provided for animals in clean structures which shall be kept structurally sound, maintained in good repair, contain the animals, and restrict entrance of other animals. These structures, together with associated runs, shall be located a minimum of fifty feet(50')from any property line and must be located in a rear yard. 2. Food and Bedding: Suitable food and bedding shall be provided and stored in facilities adequate to provide protection against infestation or contamination by insects or rodents. Refrigeration shall be provided for the protection of perishable foods. 3. Waste Removal: Provision shall be made for the removal of animals and food wastes, bedding, and debris disposal in order to keep the kennel free from the infestation of insects, rodents, or disease and from obnoxious or foul odors. 4. Criteria for Indoor Kennel Facilities: Applicants for kennels must show that indoor facilities have a sufficient heating and cooling system to provide a moderate temperature throughout the year; a sufficient ventilation system to circulate the air; an adequate natural or artificial lighting system to allow inspection and cleaning at any time of the day and that interior wall and ceiling surfaces are constructed of materials which are resistant to the absorption of moisture and odors. • 5. Criteria for Outdoor Kennel Facilities: Outdoor facilities will be constructed to provide shelter from the weather and associated elements while providing sufficient space for animal movement and exercise. Adequate drainage must be provided to prevent water buildup and subsequent damage and to facilitate waste removal. Adequate fences or retaining walls must be constructed to contain animals and prevent intrusion by others. I. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR KENNELS AND HOBBY KENNELS: Special review criteria for all types of kennels to be considered by the Reviewing Official are included in RMC 4-9-100F. J. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR BOARDING AND STABLES: For uses such as commercial horse and pony boarding, riding stables, and schools the conditional use criteria of RMC 4-9-030 shall be applicable. K. BEEKEEPING: 1. Minimum Setback: Hives shall be located a minimum of twenty five feet(25')from an interior lot line, with the hive(s) entrance(s)facing away from the nearest property line. Hives shall be located a minimum of one hundred feet(100')from public and/or private rights-of-way or access easements. 2. Maintenance Standards: a. Hives shall be maintained to avoid overpopulation and minimize swarming, for example by requeening regularly, so as not to become a nuisance. b. Hives shall be marked or identified to notify visitors. L. NONCONFORMING USES: In cases where the keeping of animals does not comply with these regulations, the situation shall be classified as a nonconforming use. •- . - - - - • - 1985). rights bclong to a prop- - . . . - _ . -- . .. •• _ -- - M. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: 1. Compliance with Current Code Regulations: In those situations where the keeping of animals does not comply with these regulations and the situation is not classified as a nonconforming use, then the owner shall have to comply with the Code regulations. 2. Fines: Violation of land use permits granted are subject to fines established in this Code.All other violations of police regulations shall be administered in accordance with Chapter 6-6 RMC, Animals and Fowl at Large. (Ord. 3927, 7-15-1985; Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992; Amd. Ord.4963, 5-13-2002) 4-2-060 B.ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Resource Conservation Residential-1 DU/Acre Residential-4 DU/Acre Residential-8 DU/Acre Animal Husbandry (20 or fewer Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 small animals per acre) Animal Husbandry (4 or fewer Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 medium animals per acre) Animal Husbandry (maximum Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 Permitted Use #51 of 12 large animal per acre) Greater number of animals Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner H aring Examiner Hearing Examiner than allowed above Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Conditional Use#36 _Conditional Use#36 Conditional Use #36 Conditional Use#36 Beekeeping Permitted Use#35 Permitted Use#35 Permitted Use#35 Permitted Use#35 Kennels Administrative Conditional Use#37 Kennels,Hobby Accessory Use#37 Accessory Use#37 Accessory Use#37 Accessory Use#37 Pets,common household,up to 3 per Accessory Use Accessory Use Accessory Use Accessory Use dwelling unit,or business establishment Stables,commercial Administrative Administrative Conditional Conditional Use#37 Use#37 Notes: #35—Provided hives are established on lots a minimum of one acre in size. Setbacks and other limitations apply per RMC 4-4-010. Standards and Review Criteria for Keeping Animals. I #36—A greater number of animals per acre than are otherwise allowed in this zone may be permitted by the Hearing Examiner as an administrative conditional use; provided: a. The keeping of animals must meet the conditions of RMC 4-4-010F,General Requirements for Keeping Animals;and b. A farm management plan has been adopted based on the King County Conservation District's Farm Conservation and Practice Standards showing that adequate pasturage to support a larger number of animals is provided. #37— a. General Requirements: Subject to requirements of RMC 4-4-101, Standards and Review Criteria for Keeping Animals,Hobby Kennels require a Hobby Kennel License per RMC 4-9-100. b. IL Zone—Kennels: In the IL Zone,when operations are predominately conducted out of doors rather than completely enclosed within an enclosed structure,an administrative conditional use permit is required. c. IM Zone—Kennels and Hobby Kennels: Within the area south of I-405 and north of SW 16th street only indoor kennels or indoor hobby kennels are permitted. #51— a. General Requirements:No animals are allowed on lots less than one acre in size. Animal husbandry uses are subject to the standards listed in RMC 4-4- 010, Standards and Review Criteria for Keeping Animals. Only combinations of medium and small animals or large and small animals may be permitted outright on one-acre,provided that the overall total of animals is consistent with the requirements per acre(for example,twenty(20)small animals plus four(4)medium animals). b. R-8 and R-10 zones—Small Animals:only six(6)or fewer small animals per acre are permitted. c. R-8 and R-10 zones—Large Animals: Large animals are permitted on lots four(4)acres or greater in size. Only one large animal per two(2)acres is permitted. ( Y BENSON HILL COMMUNITIES ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED 4.2 SQ. MI. ANNEXATION March 12, 2007 The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Petition from registered voters in the proposed annexation area representing more than 10% of the area's estimated 3,200 registered voters. King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division certified the sufficiency of this petition on January 23, 2007. Under state law the City is required to adopt a resolution within 60 days of certification of the petition either rejecting the proposed annexation, or approving it and calling for an election. If it calls for an election the ballot must put forth the proposition whether voters are for or against annexation to the City of Renton. The Council must also decide whether it wants the ballot to contain the proposition of whether voters would be asked to assume their proportionate share of the City's outstanding indebtedness which is currently assessed at about $0.08 per each $1,000 l„r of assessed property value. The Council must also decide whether it wants the ballot to contain a proposition on future zoning. The Administration is recommending against asking residents to vote on future zoning at this time since the subject area has not yet been prezoned. The City anticipates holding public hearings on prezoning later this summer. The Administration is also recommending that the proposition on outstanding indebtedness not be included on the ballot because the amount that would actually be collected from the area appears to be $80,000 or less, and the outstanding dept (senior housing bonds) is expected to be retired in early 2009. As a result, if Council concurs with the Administration's recommendations, the ballot would only ask voters whether they wished to be annexed to the City of Renton or not. An election would likely be held in November, 2007. In considering this petition driven annexation the City has decided that residents would receive the same level of service it provides other City residents. Consultant studies indicate that the City would also need to hire additional personnel to do this. The anticipates approximately XX new employees, including police, fire, public works, etc. to provide this same level of service it provides residents elsewhere in the City. Even with this higher level of service, analysis indicates that most property owners within the annexation area would pay less for property taxes and services than they now do as residents of unincorporated King County. This is true even though the City, unlike the County, collects a 6% utility tax. In 2005 dollars there would be an anticipated short fall of revenue over costs of approximately 441, $681,000 per year growing to an estimated $3.4 million in 2025. Because of the area's size and the legislatures adoption of SSB 6686 in 2006, the City qualifies for a 0.1% sales and use tax rebate that could be used to cover the discrepancy between revenues and operating costs for the first ten years. Council Hearing Handout 02-13-06.doc\ /, ., ..... .��.�• � 11.71 'i;•��I SII'`P � � I // p•rr`��a ___...., • 5• IN 111//, N. iik.,_ / •••. *4:',. 1/1r•' m� =, \\J/ c `o %SAO.♦r♦♦ y�.1 s s. • E3/C�1► .. nn a,•LL •■11ib7ss ,��,,+++"/ ,fv••. t.ei •e t c•,: , �."L►y �I ' � ��� pI�!■w■ ,� •L.iiPI a tar ► �, ��..�i♦�u t1► 1j ��- � �� stem l• n. �I. /�w♦\�.�e'♦�x'• #1:-.147.41:04.160 /�sa GOi r�tr: '! i�"au:: I ,� �•'.1 ui� OP•A ►/j`•%. .v���yibjy�� i� .► �rn. C.■_, 1 .....44-1 �1•;3 ryS ♦ v. `:. c'� .♦�4 • �-qlr, L.S • rr, `�\` iGeau�����O 5�1�uu♦<>n• Ir•�i �!4 - �' %• 41 �•J�� ■11111:�111i1//i/I■ C.V•i O.dt•• .�:� �:.�I•�•�..••i. Iq1 � t�.''•� IPPON ES,7I� �I� '�''�■@7i %►�1+.�.•�•hnA�Atli :A•e>�oJ edi :orrpr` •0'�•t♦• e iv:1 �1 Q ■• t/II♦♦■lA►IIINLtII�■ t.J :•►.�:a%� •rrryrrr■ gar ��•������•i` �c..� wl:a■ 1•i/4 0►t:..1■ ar.11111 i11 \dt°ts.��♦•.4 nailiiiiikuLirr1�`py�'r �i••► ' •.1 ♦46iii n1 iln✓l s:•♦sa'sr u1: :w;ia'44 r ro •• •,I, :1.:7��� i � •r• \ii !�®�'•I r►e H r:3i6':ur•o♦e< •�•sn&ry _iu���►� on v er+r it �Ht d �►tE�IlEtdnllniYN@tL�a dtl� Erg t ,ou v efts ill•rr1�1� C t,r• d.�1■4�II 'i �is i O., �I<�1611i'.`I®ri.°17 •♦ : �■■r L 1♦��r. �Y91i �v • 11'1!Ir 1;1 i uct-� i Sal v j ♦ice• O• -: S ii a A 'i 1� � �Ii t7E1F71711111 . 1:::mrs .: .�� 1J4`� •4 q�� , t?, ■r +• . • �� Ili: 71 J1 l�epr!r•1.1 �Ih11 t..."'"!!1,st t the 1 7�• •�•► // - -- Lnr,Vr@P7Ei@ etc►crrsc 11 •i lib I SN 27tl.St W J i '•.o• •♦�■ .7tfi 11:Li§8 � E 1 ►•.►i a:�€ca w ':►� hr _�i1,n1♦ •,� a•a j♦j i. ^1111NILn11 �J II"z1P. 17.1;1,11).061HF7i11.1111:11!:&:11.1:4,11:-::::::::::!,me: 1QF a� • IIII/I �V p....•A♦ •s•. rr t.4.�� Ii'■ENN 1 1 19LP •r.�,w - - NI n � •.• '' - r HE ")f ai�ltd x + •L1� + LEa 4♦c ��: - 16" rIL�• O•it1 '!r �A utt 1# . x 1 11 i lta,ttl: . J:• c„. \ ♦ p • •A it Rr ■tl ( c ► 1 a � ;$4,11, °� r --__ 1� ♦ dy.•♦•+• •• •::, u , Vjnt!114. hill .. 3 au ara. r.>{a -, i`♦t'�i ►•i•■ y ,.h 5 eca .._ ,\ii1 i[I .ediml ►.vnrrFa�'!°.�i•°'.♦est .•ic°:, _ k�,};� ems. -,.'.■tom Q►ji•►I♦�•♦p1� S -4 x. \til �tritt ,r., . ur�it titT a►1 �a,��Y• e. Et �♦i•��r. •n� •tV1 I.r• -� .•,� 1.1•g .■� .1�E cry rr Lrrs.,e,.e 1trn1N66 xa re .�e- •'r: ii ■ ■: ��I 1 F t11■1•• ♦ �,5- !�'714��■■1.17CSNL/Aun1rr71vr+•l O�/S -■- ,`� '��-w+j;e,lv✓��j 11■1111111t.r FI ti.. E t'�A 1��F. . r..4S .J F 1 1111 .'�4••' /x r..d.r 1 7P,,,s§IIJI]►l 1i '41 1111111 ■- _�Luu r Inuuuur-f r !4-��� � &°(lIRI4_■ 11-.71:3 -- ■lig■ r 4x r+tk - a1■.- S . c :. €Lg � a ,■a }s •ir' ::_mnureR\i't► ►ih, r47�..�'ra tS r- ..�� y 1 �`�� Ewllr. r_ •IrintElL915Ss1tL3§E13!''''''"4-1 7rE g 3 uc» 'Y ?t• i.;..,,, ME_.ir 1 =T h,■"-.'� rte `' stv'.. ..,- two -a d r ..3 . ,..IJ 11 Fsly,,I,,.L CI L,\ `q\ p dim!\Pmng1 N lu eaa 3cI•I+� 't:� uu.' trn11ii5 1 : . -. �,Ni mil ■'1i ; p .,,,, ,1, ,4 ■E�h. øL6 �`z�k " • � 0 tit III1111P t ■�� „„ , , j + rti firgi�� �! � k.,�, f e- 3 r r■jai �■,''.� LELIJEt e d�1' v.��r 5 fNrtn�B1�"`t Isn � r • �, km21' d� m�. .gl to11111§_7 ... _ ��Miln i us i e �A.. zf 111■i►Eil E1� -IEL1■ e'' - k sa s i . ,. �, i1t'11�:,ii Reiat : ■ ma 1 :. i■■��•ae;tra t tar 1 Ir lalr101 ■ .t1_a � i� � j�i;�.udvj.� t♦� ''er s � .lle �„' a•_now � AWE" rG SF"5' fi� �� �•��IE6■F 11� tr�irt tit. +1INNEN � „.� €t mss€f t�. i cam, e&y a ..►�\L1=iris •tpump t , V4Et�ikiri. rIS s ', `�.1: Il .: r. �V1111i l/ 1♦rrrr_r .a•rlaer. y 1. 1 .4.• .►\I..xxrur \. S F1•t'rt '�`k,t a 11�l.cJ .. ■.►.4 1 ,l• •fid\ ' •'�,' ttF r F 4L8�ela■r■■■ t ' >/►111fi � i ..:.��•� ��t� � � rfls . •,4 •■. . � Irl f Etrx t 51 iSt1�11i1i1111�r �iQji�• ►t:�C % ►b : tLL. 7■�Ilr ►sB.:lt:1 r, ■7L�ircan7;a■ii 1rRr i,q e •��••_ ,O• Ir �M _ t� .:N ,� `�I- 5147.714t2711--,,,,...-�t11 � �!i" h�r���i-> . Ir ♦o•����t/� . -�grist _ t r:'. n`.-"r - ► "••►.i.q r�•ca Ii ` •tile:JIM Ire t� £ t k.°r EfLIlei►•�t►0 ltiii III►I1� �� ,,pill : ;Int■ • �:neve /I[t r .�t x. ,, � t ■11:x.gaIN ng _u••�1`��•% L.I�\t■10 Ingo_ _ i pian r -¢ {r tt ■■ 'n►••►►.•►♦ 11: _ •1 1 ad MI 1 II f;,'�l: a: arfji F: :4' ' .s �II111Lip lin:• ■. ■Y :� -rmail 3. ril .mti �� -i, _r 7l ri!E! ®i".-lp ig .�ll 1111=,„::titiiiill ; € ■ Rei �n i III■t IMMO -1110§ ■"JI■:in;Iiii •_1_�M Mw�' II E k ek NIB C.i ji ili YN■ �3 aro: ..,st nu t:.I E=0.- _ �1 r=te_ 11•11:11.12[11'161 , 1�w '�a 7..Nn 1111111111\■� •y 11..ii.a ��r•ri r■1� c �,� ,. �' IiS�" r :riii� r�wvs�llllllll•�•d +ice♦ i►�'i��•:�� L ERY r 1 tl� ,\�....�■�►ylnt■ ♦•i♦hd►� It 1►�•; ■i[_ 7, L_,_______1� SE zoom IA r.�.►t4... �. •i•.r.n1,�-• i i_i■fCYu.■IniE;.tJ►L'a1�1.ylo 11. 1•■. ,su 11t III`Ar:_', ..11■:••qa �- �r■■■ •- , - 111[11414•1[!! r*t 1_ : 111( IE. 1l sr 111.11 -■.^r_� ..::yatr. .L>D d ..Boitii ■�_ � LW u..a�hq►� •►:� ' r► i.IL1I/•� lik st5. • � '� az L1I ' J /IIIIIT. ���%1 m►tt..■�1 .� '•i♦ 1■ 1:':W♦ 1��'� �i/i I�� ��•►.. ►�� <!',_1� \ ;it4 • 1..�r w11Lt 4.. 1 L/111�1 ��� iE;■111■. !• 11[.1limit � /' ix lir mil agni N.VW:fa:4M Proposed Benson Hill Communities Annexationi*NO T • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning • • Alex Pietsch,Administrator Annexation Boundary C.E.Feasel ,4.NTfl 15 December 2006 ' 1 . .6 . '$.:%•:'7.(\,,* =1:::::•.x.'......:,-,',, *„:,::"*..".,•,,,'• '','„;:i;.",,es,,.'›';-.'-,, '":".' :•,,'., '.,41/0. ,,:,1°-,s, ; ' .,4'.1.,,,,,.:! . ...,.,,,,,, ,, , ?_,:,4;V.'r.,-.',,,,'.''t.':'. ::::' ,:il!"'4": ' '..; .-,..t,',•?•"=•:'"='`S':24,44 1 ...,f.:,,,'"I'' , ''14 ' '.''',' ,4.,.'..,, ' ..,„ ' *":1,41:i.•*./, ',,^, 7:,'' '''''.' :0,f, ','•'''' ' 0":.0,*. ..,-;;:i''-,''''',"4 , r:,-- ,,,,..., • '', ' ;:,,..!:..,,,;.: assm* •,. ...b'•- 4:', • :,•::,,,t*' ''' ; "g,'...i.';`, . ,,„..-,,,,.4-1:',' :1,,„ , 4! :j ''4'1' ,.. ' :t.,',,:4t„' , :.'.•"'i".'t'4.,'!''' '' ''' :i.,4,,,...!It.‘! At:'''',i't-,''''' ::'ee'•- ,(44) 4$;*:::4:,,i,2,,..t,,',..",.:, :',,,;,,;„.: -05c .• '40f.,, ,',:,,,-it,',4,::......•:,-:' -,'%;::,ii:,::::. :::,4:20;-..4.,': ' ,„„,,,,,,,,,,,tf...Y ew *t..,?;; , =::;':',',4,,'...• ›:-‘,:,:,,,,.'i. .--;:,:',,,A14p,'zx,. :, ,„,..::',.4.,:;i:',-. ,. ‘,...> ..- , „",?-,.:".-,„4,•i:<::', t ”: .4.,,q,4'..,--.' ' . ..,,,,KW; „...,..0111,,, ,,lx.'-' ' ,, ,, . r11.....f....,,....:'‘.44,..t7r.'),..,',z‘'''''i'..*!''''''' ''.`it''''.':':''''''''''''' :,,,F,`',•;;i::',.."",' : ,.,,',;,.„,,,,,,,.':',1"'' ;t, ,:.,'''.' _,, ..- ir; ,.."4:mi.,..f..' ,,..::,...,,,,.,:„..4:,,,,,'- "..,..:::44,0i.,,,,' '''' 1, .n....'••,,, • . i,,:::„,,,,,,,, ,,-! : •,,,,,,;:,V‘'• , ,... ' ..,,,,..4,s, : ,,,a,;•k..01,•=".• .' • .',,,.,4•'•%'" : ,,:k....r..,..''''' z>4.; , • Be'n'''''s-on''Ilill'Comni-ii2nittes Annexation Public Hearing March 12, 2007 1 kkY"3^ l,,,eY,&'tV . 4 ` ev�'3Lx< 9b> 6xore ,,fin" � y* k ` 5 s 'a Ata -04,— fir 5;arxtm$`^ w,�i't' �I •T�b�� ,f�x ',f n k .k' , rY „. ,E ecernb r 0 eft ,�rec pr 1 %1otic of x. g'' intent petxuon cad g for A.election;oh annexation of a 4.2 sq. milearea west of Soos Creek and , south/southeast of the current City boundaries • In January 2007 petition was certified by County Elections as having signatures representing at least 10% of the registered voters in the annexation area • Tonight's public hearing is being held, pursuant to state law, so that Council can adopt a resolution either supporting or rejecting the proponents' call for an election on annexation we„ a� '''' 4,�i'a, a i �„� ' : 't~^4 `'` x" f4, '' - :, If'Council passes c resolution calling for vote on the question of annexation, it must also decide: Whether to put the proposition of future zoning before the electorate, and -- Whether to put the proposition that property located within the annexation area would be assessed and taxed to pay the City's outstanding indebtedness. 2 4 4 '. 7vl'. I fL Cte - 4W ie:P `+ �' r.rwcn�ru. Fk_''` ISLAND Merritt II(Phase 11) Perkins 52.7 ac. 15.6 ac, Aster Park # s 18.5 ac );4 Benson H:11 Marshall 7.7 ac. Communities Annexation • Leitch 16.2 ac. Hudson 14.6 ac. `Sry IL ILA '\"^ ,•,, 1 KNIT , r Current Annexations Benson Hfll Communities 2437.9 ac. t;. r '� 4 a r2; Size: 10.3 sq. mi. a ; :; Estimated Pop: 42,200 Parks: ± 550 acres ,14444 ri Jnr . Benson Hill/Fairwood ` Area Map s''" 3 `" �k ,,' . :.:1„ ;-a e z:*- ..ate, s +a s (.'. ..,Fw.Vii; t.s ' s #... : Size: 4.2 sq.mi, . .,� . 1 .g 4.7 3 ,,,;.=.47.,ix & Wim., ' R v Estimated Pop: 16,100 --. - ..,t,'":';','.:',,:,,,,;-,:".'..-P-1,.. Roads: 45 linear miles ' $ , : . ,,,, ,�' ��:-".;,,:1,r,,,4I,,,..,4I aw Parks: + 93 acres r 4 � . .. . . ... .......... Benson Hill Communities Annexation '}.w�� " �* v- � 1 <y3r•` .4,g rqf v 3 ,m� ..,P,'-' e au� 'ab " rsC�y ' -le �' k� ,„4'.''' ,,,..i 1,...e, - ' a . ,,,,N, ,,„i`,k tcC F �k v O • M K 'k ' U. ' f1� Eonlolls v f� . • Location—Abuts southeast portion of City primarily east of 102nd Ave SE, if extended and north of SE 192nd St within Renton's Benson Hilh/Fairwood PAA • Size - + 4.2 sq. mi. • Existing Uses - + 7,854 dwellings and+ 430,000 sq. ft. of retail space • Boundaries—Renton corporate boundaries on the north and west, Kent PAA boundary on the south 4 • . . , , .. ..!?:'''''''''''' • , ,.44titt' l''''. ' ,..,.; ,,,..,....'''' ''''; '''''. ' ' ,, Og e" ,'''','` ' -111;014..,''''''''''":=:*-3. +.,..,;;'. • ,,,. • • . .,. -''" - k , '',..,• a, ,.: .,e,j 4.,„ ,k, '' ',,,,H,, --•,,, ,•,y, ,, , ii 1 ,, •1..ik ,., f'.,7•-':•'0' L('.::'‘cr,,..1 ..... , ,.', ,,,5`,',.,,,i' ' , . *,• An,,,xation „., - - .ow; '' ,'' *';';:. ,',:' ,f ; : ''' . •.-;,Ittic*.: ,,,,,,x:•°.- '- "7;`,„,... "'''. / ' '• \'- _-.,,-4' ' • f/ ,, ..... \ •, c--"- 1 ... - --,--- . , , / - ' :.- . ,I.A.t ..„...,„„,. ,. 04_,,.......,4,: .t. c- trig,x:.,-vii. A , ,'''. ','4*:...4A'1•441:,,l''''t,'44 ','", •,.. ..ee.4<. ' m.„4";„;`,,,t4k•V=1?,•:,.,- .1`4•*,, .... --- , - - .1, 0„„..4,..,.. -—•• . ,-, . ,4..,..4,..-N-.i ' ., Casca- Shopping Center Chinquapin Subdivision iF 1 • klic '>- .44 ' ;""'':' ,". •-' •-• - . 1 ' , apartments Petrovitsky ...._. Renton Pool -..:.!.,,,4'- , ,,,,,,,,,,,,„..... ,,,_t : SE1641'4* .** '4* RidgeChurch tn Street housing Cedar 5 ''vv;,„,*.4'°.:444t,=7;"4.,=,= Ve4.''',',..:,1,1- , '''..J.' ri'' =.k=i:k:_liofe'. 4A417Sti, 5Z, *ii'llbelS, ' ' ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,st a a .. as „A � x„ . f x � te..a� � f y 4 d n ..� y.LY � �''� \ � w&��`., ,.4.1r• ' i . "a a , � ¢A777, * ��, ter.°s Lindberg HighCascade Elementary • ° - = -fl s'= '�.""�''�•",'�,`�,�... Benson Hill Elementary Renton Park Elementary �_ e ►�entiC - st Can t o s Currently District'40, °, with annexation of Renton �.,: • Utilities (no change) -' Within Soos Creek Water and Sewer District _ Iii. L„ • Schools (no change) „”` A ... — 98% Renton School District tA��.�` � - 2% Kent School District 6 , . .' 4;4 .'1 r,44,,, ,: ..”,-1: , ... .'-' '1,,,i a t ' ig,..: , Alia':'z' 4:!.'14,:j. ',:;;;,‘.., '''' '::::)*,,,:...i, d -ic..:.;,,,,,, :::,I, ,,,,,::„9: _ reuen t- ' .::::R.,-ntii: , ,iiii-.:: f:::,,,;.! ':::-. , '. 4f ' 2.„,- -,-:r7-4,rr=, ,,, '. *et of: 0,. „,;,,,,f 6 ta''''''!' ' se :go' sr - atiofr, ''' ' ' Commercial Corridor' ''' . ' - f - Residential Multi-Family h..., , '--,\,, '''i ... I, 66' - . N.-.:i - , Residential Med. Density Residential Single Family //' ' r If • Residential Low Density .. ,a . 'i 41--:-,., I _ $ „ -:i*? , - -''„.', *,". :‘,fiek-i , ,..,„,,;140,1 ,. ,„;,,,;,,,':,,c,,',''''', .1kin.elevantguitv:, • ,,A,:45,- ,,,t ''' eXatIon roliC1 Po' '''', ' Iij', '''''''""1-144, - '''''l' ' . 'LW' ).' __ , ri'-' of*it, ,,,„ 494irqge antlo4tio#,11,14r0#10,ii*iilability ' z Jra,,s,trictur ,pnd servicesiiliow foiihe development of urbairdensities nton is anticipated to take over Police, Fire, Parks & Recreation, and governmental services for this area. Soos Creek Water and Sewer District would continue to be the purveyor of water and sewer for most of the area — Policy LU-37. The highest priority areas for annexation to the City should be those contiguous with the boundaries of the City The 4.2 square mile area is contiguous to the City's along both its westerly and northern boundary 7 . . of I- ,.,„:-:, . ,i;,,,,,,,, , ,,. Iti,..;,,, ,-4Az 4at,„''emild rat*infigure, ,?iirje*„pOit ahrig*atm-,-1, " .duplication of i,,•,,,Or4e19,1,4v.- • , -c- ,, pr eumintaq • etas to City$grvices , A lithse orvUft;Pnr Ofividither:designate.deafullseNiieranarrdawy waterservicesghervqiuce providerality Renton will provide urban municipal services to the area.maintenance, laneindusecludand police, fire, recreation, street transportation planning, permitting, and accessible government — Policy LU-42. Supportnaturalannexations resourcesofl oworerde providen s i tyuarrbeaans where it would protectseparator areas. Both Renton and the County have ditesssiognutahtewdeastsmall portioncorner, of the annexation as an urban separator between Renton and Kent ,7 ,0- • e., 4t,. ,,,,,,,t, ,A, ,,A, "--• ,pt- „,irri ,.,„,,,i, obipictiveb, - ...,•*4''' Of 0.44 ole 5,.%- 1,sr `..e -$x ,'. ' 1, n sa is;* within ,v „.,. - t, „ iir-... , , '; 1 xatio-i - s to comply with , tk, ton's PAA aPPur ' . Board Renton's ' ' daty Review the followi'tig relevant Bonn objectives: — It has reasonable boundaries — It preserves natural neighborhoods and communities, — It creates and preserves logical service areas, and — It provides for iannexationofunincorporated areas that are urbann character 8 • Fiso.a.wA, .4 yogi , -;rooako. Ajalytiiof RorKandAto'ciatat) / • What are anticipated operating costs to Renton if it authorizes an election which passes and the City eventually annexes this area? seaE,A.-nalysis-(447c.atiowatysivojA • . :,Caseticle Area fqrKing',C7ounty, Dec 2005, J3erkand Associates) 2005 Berk&Associates' Study Asitimptions — Economy of scale from serving city of 75,000 — Levels of service same as rest of Renton * Capital needs to meet Renton standards • Estimated net operating cost to City in 2005 dollars would be approximately $681,000 including responsibility for Fire District 40's Station 42, but excluding the Renton Pool 9 � d� . -N,,,A1,,a',, s" ;s, <a s s�5s' :s0 ,,a 'h�, :,qe �' '" - `,,,+,, ,s �;^ ., a - a ry #;v''' r�``,�P''''` l , .� ,:'•;,,'',,,,..1.00410,1",,t'", i�£b.,F {`fix ,3"44:x}' i < '3 rd^ £ `: ✓.h.4 f t'P 1::4,;. .ai"4401:,,,'fi/ ,�3.eEY V� s Care Operating Costs andRevenues Estimated Operating Estimated Operating Costs (2005) Revenues(20051 $8,719,000 $8,038,000 1 Estimated Net Revenue (2005) ($681,000) Note: These preliminary costs are currently under review and refinement and will updated in the near future „ g, 0, akl i44404 irr W`W !'• . `A 4 ,� i 'Sea , 1• , . 1;• what.new capital needs and costs would �Reiitonrna,cur•ta'addiress `uture capital ..,. requirements?' -- The 2005 estimated capital needs and costs are currently being updated in consultation with City departments -- The annexation area is expected to generate approximately $700,000 per year in revenues from business licenses and real estate taxes that could be used to address these capital needs* *Source: Berk&Associates 10 4 ••s, ,°a:;t fro `C L 4 9 L,^g'3 h 'fir 3 S • Cit departments are refilling anc dating trans t on l casts City would, !if it-annexes this area, including purchase of police and road- maintenance equipment, capital facility planning, and land use and comprehensive planning? — The initial estimated cost of equipment purchases for Public Works is $1 million — Police and Fire would be expected to also have initial equipment acquisition costs — Other transition costs to be determined *Source: Fiscal Impact of Annexations, Berk& Assoc. Oct. 3,2005 ^,i,,.,r,?i zs a Ysy''t,, a'i' yi• :x +., „.", s"a ,r s $ ? s ` S € xraa yo->,,:r "' xa-:k cal mss continued As a result of$$116686,te City would, qualify for a rebate ofup.to 0.1%-ofthe state sales and use tax collected locally to cover these costs for a period of 10 years from the date first imposed • Projected revenue stream would cover deficit for 10 years • To qualify under SSB 6686, the City would have to effectuate this annexation before January 1, 2010 11 4 ,74. 4PO4i414:4t • '.11'1'''tq'5,Viv, „" • ' FisO4PAn4ly$1s • To ensure Renton's current level of service the 2005 Berk&Associates study* estimated need to hire 78 new employees • City staff currently refining these estimates at department level *Fiscal Impact of Annexations, Oct 2005,Berk&Associates fk • °P,';FigcartrilPileatiOng;:'0,011.UTI4eU 'Major efficiencies exist by bringing the 4.2 sq. mile area in at one time rather than through multiple smaller piecemeal annexations: — These include economy of scale allowing Renton policy to drive growth rather than King County policy — Economic development initiatives focused on Cascade commercial areas 12 A `¢; `?. +§,k 04'1' $ i'' q ` ' h ':t ETA .. `a £ ,,x ' IAP Cr � 'phe propp ed Benson.T�ill Conirmutri hes Annexal on • Generally consistent with Renton's Comp Plan annexation policies • Generally consistent with relevant Countywide Planning Policies • Generally consistent with Boundary Review Board Objectives, and • Because of SSB 6686, the difference between revenues and costs in providing municipal services would be covered for the first 10 years 'at(titita E ' • Pursuant to`R W 35A.14,024 the Council is required to take action within 60 days of certification of the 10% Notice of Intent petition by adopting a resolution either supporting or rejecting the proposed action calling for an election • Since the petition was certified on January 23rd, 2007, the deadline for taking such action is March 24th, 2007 13 . . y.' ,,,„,„"04;,,:,..4,0-1-..ik`t' s4't-40.-. ,' ',64`? • ;I' .10",:''' :'N',•': "4., ' . 4..','-';', .. . Azr:i ,- v9,-- ,'' f- ,.'•, '„,., Should the.. Council o'','u, n,. 104-wt alesolttio n authorizing an election in the fall with the proposition whethervotersto theoterssupcpityfortoor do not support annexation Renton? — The Administrationisvotersrecommfavorending that the proposition ofwhether annexation or not be placed on the ballot for a fall election ,,,,,..,,' ,,,„.*'''', : i:.74'•I'''e''''''''',,...;';`....V ':,e‘a;,#.'' - ,,,,,,.:;;f”' ,,,,,,",,,,,, ' ., ",... ' ;,. ',=-- ;,,,„ ZoningPritlire:, , , ,A ..0.,,,,4-i •-„.,,,": 4:L't2,,,,;i0C,,m con1-1111,, ,, future zoning for IAA, J4,,, -.2t.-. ,', !aced on .;,'!'''•„shraUld„ Annexation„ ,K, - 4.::.t,Annexa. 1 Conurinniuv ' the ballot? area also- be p .... The Placed on the ballot since: Administration recommends that zoning not be • Cityannproepxoatsieosnp,ranezdoning area prior to the effective date of the be able to present sub-are Land Use Map to residents • By holding public hearingasroencofmmutureenzdoantii and with the City's Comp Plan onngs co thenCsiistytewntill get their feedback 14 ,.;01,0:0"P': „...e • ' 4 Ife ?z=1, % • ' • Should voters be asked to'assume proportionate share of Renton's outstanding indebtedness? — The Administration is recommending against placing this proposition on the ballot because the City's voter approved outstanding indebtedness is small and near retirement , . > 41,1,44 Ze' 111 'The'Adrninistfatio4 fecorturiends.: * That council pass aresolution calling for an election on the question ofannexation,which would be submitted to the voters of the proposed annexation area in the fall • That Council LILA place on the ballot the question of future zoning, and • That Council not place on the ballot the question of whether property within the annexation area should be assessed and taxed to pay all or any portion of the City's outstanding indebtedness, and • That Council authorize the Administration to invoke the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board when it submits the Notice of Intent package so that a hearing before the Board can be held this summer 15 Jeanette M. Millmann cm'OF RENTON Nur10620 Southeast 186th St. Renton, WA 98055 MAR 0 6 200? March 3, 2007 CITYE RK'S OSCE Renton City Council 1055 S. Grady Way, 7th Fl. Renton, WA 98055 Dear Council Members, I am writing to ask you to support the annexation of the Benson Hill Communities to the City of Renton. Since moving into my home on Southeast 186th St. in 1969, I have witnessed much growth and development both in Renton and on Benson Hill. Renton offers much to its citizens and the Benson Hill Communities will bring much to the city. I know us to be people who support schools, libraries,public servants, and property and want the best for our families. I feel very connected to Renton, as it is where I attend my church events, community events such as the performance at the Ikea Center this evening, and do the majority of my shopping. At present one of my grandchildren attends Lindbergh High School, one attends Renton Technical College and my three children graduated from Lindbergh. We regularly attend youth sports events. Renton is progressive in a sensible, conservative way and I hope you will agree this annexation fits well into Renton's future. Thank you. Sincerely, Jeanette M. Millmann ed: Pe,b l i c Ilea rind eovres ponde► 3-/a- 426 %enda "km 1'& $eIsOA /-1;1/ d.aminuUi'«s 41nnesu 1ror CITY OF RENTOV March 9,2007 MAR ,2 2007 Renton City Council CITY lFEVSE8FFlCE do City Clerk 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Subject: Benson Hill Area Annexation We are residents of the Benson Hill Area Annexation. At this time we are in favor of our area annexing to the City of Renton. So far from the information we have obtained, it appears it would be good for us to be annexed by Renton. We would appreciate having an opportunity to vote on this in November 2007. Sincerely, ^� " Ruth Pearson Otto Pearson 19112 104th PL SE Renton WA 98055 I,- . •t. C.,',.,":4,,,i,,,,,,"; _,'..,- ".- -- ,., ... ,A ./.- t ..t'• • '' ' r,tt . , •,.., '' .t..,..•-. '' '-''''' t, t „ _ t ,"Ittt, t- ''':)' ' ' '''i 1LrAtt -- '...,.....011101.1 _1111I•I' ' ' .' *'''n''''.'''::7'::: . ,,, . - -r , ' 1 jiir • '" -.- - —I 4;.711 p' iii. • - • 4 ' .'" 1 - - * ' ' ' '''''' '.'";,4 ''.''. ''''Veit ' :- , •**10,14''',, i' ' ',.,,,:'• ..,,,„, - ._. ,, _v,..._.:,_,,i ....1,;, ._, , : :i 7,,S;;,E,.=.7,li:61_,:4.:: tF.1::,:finr.,,, , ., j , Cascade Elementary ,,,,,,..x:,,,7S,,,,.E 1:4::;,,S,,;1:,ou:in,,,,g , .,,q.. ,r...,,.. - ......7.sig-,--:,-..-...., iii3.e.,-, k,.' Cedar Ridge Church .11 Bens. - ,., ,,„,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,..„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„>)„,„ Lindberg High School III \ -;1 -..i',L.-?;-,,,..' -,:j,-,,,:-!..,.....;',.- •,.:•-;',.;e5,.:*‘,,,; ,F44.] , .,.......,,.."7 ,'l...,„,,,,',7-,',•=f;,,-.'"V•?,7i.,„-FIt.4"-..„-1 \-- - ,-.--,-,':',;'.71.17,---- ',<>14.'...y11.1-ii-..=.4ri-b.„.,....4,..t.;:i.,c;,-.4.ciy,,,-;:.,- -') -, -.,',f1:1'-- tiec -., , :,-;::„,-.,,c,:::::„--,,.,:f.,,,,,,, ., .-i..,-4-.-,,;yi,..4,;-4.7,;-,- ,trYtrr,rt ,,,•,',',E7-1.1.C'4.1.-'',:',7' COMM uni _.. --..--,----- ,.. ,-.:-,-,, ‘,,,-...,.-1,-,-;,u,,,,,,,,,: ,ttf,.\\,--,-,--,-Ti-,---1--4i.,-=';,,,,,, , 41 , _1 t1,--- -,:.:.'_ ,;,,_-_,,--'_:(')_,‘-',-k '''.:;',"':':'....':'.'-',--'1.1 ''';',',3-fi:;;,4‘.1.1... -4.:',51-`..'.4:', • . , ' -- 7--.:1';;;•:,,, ,'''''''''''''''''4'..: *'''' T,,. i . . Annexation , '.mb' ‘'! :TL-,---' - . ,....t- ,,-,f. --,t1,--;__-,i,t ..„......,... 7.4-1 ' 'L „...tf ,....4,..,,,:h.,..,..t•-tr. C th CCF ! : :,,,,-",,.ii'-'--,,:,1,..ii,}:J:--1. ,, :; „./. ,.z . ""'"" ----- --:••••••°. a.° ,-E 164 ..,, ,..: -;'1....:1-.01••,! 1.:,,1,..,.•:•,,,,,T,417.,7„,, „,:,, ...o,-;., '' '{q.'.;tA Ai i(?,:-.'=';;:‘-':.`'=, '''':',.,:;r'!.•.;•::' '4.'; : _ttt-,Inr;TL.."1 ..i' •';',) 11) 1 :'. ' '''''.•3E\''' '1':'1-':','"';',=1.''', \-,,,''..'2.;',:',•, ”,.,'T :''''•::•. •.• • ^ ,1-''•' 'it'..,:i: ''i< Vcc',/f,.1:4f::'.'-.T,IS3 .-.-,21'. ....,,,.z.. ,..-,4, :,,-,,,t: --.,. - -- ,-.,4..:,-,,,,,..t.,,,,tz.,-.2,..., k.tf',I,..•-tt" . ..t,t,t tAt, ,..y.,,-,„ ' -7, ,-,.....,,__-_:"L'i„. -,, ,:,\ .. ..l‘.-,...\\'/4-1', 1. ''•,r\ VAL 11:_ '.. 1,-,, -1 1•;-7:2 '.:,..±-- 7:`,:' .1.. . ,. ,.'.„4".1.f:-.77,:,',;;,,..',:..-.i.,; ,..';,,,ftir'fs-7.,1 ,..... ,-.J.1 Renton Pool ,"' . .. --- •,..',-;;,,, ` , .- -..-._1'._:,' :;'.'-i, . %lr..-.,",-',- i, ...1,•;,f',Q '2'-fi-;;,., '1,1[1,1?i1-71ill 6 i .,. ',:- LLI--:791 ,.,..--.- --jr-tr, '2's-, (/), .r.:Li:I. •' --;,1---'I -,, ,, . - -'-,.-;..it,;-:,.,t%..,•,,:,r.,t„,,t„,,1- 0>, -i-71,.-•,r.,r.;i,,- ,.,1 .1'.r1...i.i_.,,,:i,•w, ' .,,Ti2, Fred Meyer Shopping Center _ . " , ',,''t:-,,.p.:'-..',..'-::.';,-'';.4';-,,,:^• 1.,::1;:i,:'„l,l"J.7l'.1-.'.i',,•-.§r,_V",,,,7::.,: II,• '•-.-' -- -- -1-.'1' 14 ',,,',-,--,'''' il, ' :'-'- '''''' t :''' ,Li ''-2;..,,..-J,.,--fi-,.v-1..;.',i';':. ;'•,--,1-,1-0--flt-1,-1.,,:.--,c-1 4';-----', ,.. ,,,,',,,. . .., . . ,,..._• ,. ;:p.rf ,,. 14.1.:T.--7- ;`,",•.- ' % •„;-, -"-- 1-i.,,,i..., -,-•,- - "-"',--', -.7---1' --77tT,J-:-,1-...-1:-; --',1"2:::,. . '" - 'toi " - -Iii;:i.• -, •, !:,-, ;•,-:,-„•,.-„,,,, - ',,.-. , .,..,.,_.k.„, , , . , ‘,. , .. ..,... • , .A 1,.1.L..,_,* - ;-;:'::_T;"7 ' -4--'''.1• ''CZ"' .- V.' -'',--.',L.„• . I : , . [.:,;,1....1 ,'''."'"'" --1-','Ir.-,- "'...; ,.., L ,• ,'..' J' s.: .'1,*--f-,7..,..,t,,.•• - -..:7--.. i...'1. 1.,4_;,...?..... t,„....„.,.,T,, L- ,.,,,, „,,,:,,,,, ir-'1. r,4.::,.1,17;r:i:i..1.1 ':i.'SE P:i avi • 1-4.,! ! ,,--ci-,:,11.„-...1:c.-.-,., . .74.-_•...:•--1,, \--, -I ' • ,i_ i , , . ,. . ,,, __. 1 : : •-•--; , . '' j •:.•,- ' : ..-,. .,.. ' ' .- ,, ... '' •-,:,-,,,,,,-••-": ;,:',''..1-t.-' ' -''.',1 'LI I.,:., :'ILi.,,,,,'.!:-T,y,,I4raisi,1i '3'.'''', '1,):4-.1, --i ' ' • _.1 .-4. 4...] J,1'44:3;;:il',1:'*,It if _....I.:,, ,;•.••,-;.:,-.:.,..;IF„Iy..,..,,,- /-:,'--,-,-, .!.; , tr,7t ,-,---. , ., ,.. . -- -'',,-;•i-rfT)-_,,', 'i,'T.il-ti ‘,. , s ,. ". Rd tt S 434 Si;f-k'j----. 'S 1 • /7 ' - ,,•''''Il*t1:"."7. .', ,C;L-----:7,,..1 .ri-,.''t','' 4q--1.4.,-Mtl-,:‘ 'nt'-''- 1'..., ,,-- \ \\ ',,,,•••• --4.1it,„ --- Renton Park E„..2-17,,,...,, , . ; f!iri,,;f;p.y...,,,.1.',. • ',.:TH.,',....1----,P, 108 Avenue SE Retail Strip A L'' ' 44;d13'''I'l:tr'1"':',''';, '''.4''''-'E• --.-1r-iTri,-1 r '- ' . ' ' . ', ?.;\\i,-(r.--!-,7,_ri 'i-7,..i-i",.:-;.d..-!-,- , ''y'wZ11,1.,,s,'.1-.... •.1. ,. -;-1;11'71,.,....... .,., , • --, , K -'''1. " "' ""'" f,"' " - • Al ..,'''''1-:-.P.iy,..',.: ' '-'.-il.-4,-, p,,3--..7, 1, . '-.. ; „, _ „. _ , • ' .', . P-":":":::.!.., •-i- - ' . .:', ,,,. , . , , 4 ,..i.t.„.(4..,:i , t .-,...;„,:.L..."....... ,.14 -;.- ... •.,....-.-.. ..,;,:'ii-T- .. i.: ,-,'1-;1' : ;.-IT111.11111171''." 1P.4. 1 i SIN.1111M LU r.' ..„ 6,-..t,,!:%,',z,,,iip-.,.L'll:„...-,;_t -Ii:.: ).,..'•,,t,.--7-7'.",.,... -'. i, . .,,„,;-,v , ..".:.-,---_-,!i•-,-,, ,,-..c.:-J-1;J I --..,4 !won% . , ._• co ••••,;i.-; ., i ,,,,- 1 ....t ,..,t,,,,..1, ., . -,.„ ,...,...1/„..A.a....-....;,..,,-,...24....., ..r.iL,..v.,.,...,7, ,12,-...5;.:1-,i, - cli 4 1 i " IIiiiit."11:__i."-'..,.,, ` : ,-;: , ,,,;----3-t-r'iiv.-,-,:.::,.; , , 17 ' . _ . '- -P ,, ... , , ! . ...,. -• ."-. i' '1 '1 ' ' ' ' '-d((4FP-:"'"Jttf:''..):`...t!`',''. - ,..`,.• lr- — .. .1P.,t", i,.-,' ' -,, -',.-t1..,.‘; - -Ifl-,--,'f.-2±-4-"--ii'•:'. ',' : i"--J,-TY-,, ,-;.,-L:t"),"'",'--1-'''-''''''',.''- -, L., -, ,a -...,4i.:-,5-,- ..---1:',....;.7 ,- - -,; .., :,,,':,;:' -,--i-jri;;; ')J; i,:- ----- - -0,-,-.-::1' ' % ,.•:f-1,:t:;,1-1'; ',;;,-,--.),.. ,-1g,, i.,' , -11,_ . „,,, J 1 ostr • ' C? 11 ..!,.. ii, i, -t,-'-',1.'w ..,J,,-,....i'..:7-i" l '' 1' ' '.'' ''; ''''4,l'1'!j? Cascade Bowl , .. ]S 55 St ,,c;.,:lt--,-1 •••••,,I,:,'.• • -•,' • , • 1 - i.2=:.p.t. ..,1:• -,.., .,- - ... r I'. r•,9'-,', il.,-/: ' 1--..-' 11-,t i-,,SE 19 St . ,i :•-": ,-,1 -..„,,, ' i ' 4..4''':.'4.7 '". -''' i < t- 1L,-+-41- . i • . • •,.1-Ertfit.- ,-- ' • • L - -- ---1,11-i":,'!\\_-7,_•,.11-r --_ '.,--,,z,: .;;"4'. r• . ,-..,4_-i!!.. .,- , •-- -,,'. , -- 108 Avenue SE Retail Strip ------2.,..t.,•',,,-44,,-it -- ---; t--.„zr,:, „- i-w , • --71-,,,-..,-,,,,-->---,""-. . . , ”0 ' "--,' Anne :tion Bouni; '"i.--''..::;?;!1` : ''''•:- . : . . . A .,.I, ,• : --iJ; -, 11„-x'itt-',"'"-''` • , \ ! 41. , ,! -;,, rq. ' , ! ,,..- I L,P',Pt.,,,,-t„ ', ,-',,i1....,,...::.' ..-.1...,; ' ..-' ' '' '4" '11.L-",'!•-' .' V'A-e,, -ttt • It Ctt' :I' ••- •- ''''' ..'''.'''I'':'H';'''''T" ''' -:?f'i 'I'''t--- H* -- -H :L-2-,rtiti'tIrtt!---;•' -tillT.., ' ' '':!, -,5'1', . , f .1-... .,'!L':;. . ' . A i •- T , • - , t., • '---t'S '''' 12,.•Aumak I ,- ' t - ,-- '. i- -- r,- ' • . t - .. . ,,,,,•1_,.7,,t • • t•,-;• t -,....6w.r.o.RAik, . - 108th Avenue SE Retail Strip . . , . . ; . Cascade Shopping Center , . „ . .. ,. ..,,.... ,,,,, ., . . , 14, .1 iiki. , ., _ ' 1,. - --- -- .- . ,...r,:'•.C. . 0044,410,40, ;';',`!..; ' -',--', '',', ':-..,. ,. "..- . , ---,Aril ..... . ..,..„.... -'f ,-......Pm..... . Cascade Court Benson Hill Elementary Chirquan Ridge Petrovitsky Apt.s c.) „ + .„, waR ,+ Benson Hill Communities Annexation Vicinity Map with _ Existing Features jt ... �.�•.i. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE D . J-/a-2007 COMMITTEE REPORT March 12, 2007 Appeal by Alliance for South End (ASE) File No. LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM 1)Director's administrative decision designating the Landing Master Plan Application a Planned Action; and 2) the Director's Master Site Plan Approval. Referred to P&D Committee on October 2, 2006 This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on February 15, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated September 5, 2006, which dismissed for lack of standing the ASE appeals from: 1) the Director's designation of the Landing Master Plan application as a Planned Action; and 2) the Director's Master Site Plan approval. The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein, and heard argument from the attorneys representing the various parties. Finding no substantial error in fact or law, the Committee recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings and Conclusions affirming the Examiner's Decision. • Terri Briere, qhair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair 1 Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren Aicx P;e4sck Fred Kew fmarl FINDINGS 1. On May 12, 2006, the City of Renton Development Services Division issued a decision designating Harvest Partners' application for Administrative Master Plan approval as a Planned Action("Planned Action Decision"),I The project known as The Landing involves a mixed-use development proposal including retail, office, entertainment, restaurant, hotel and/or residential uses with associated parking on former industrial property located south of Lake Washington. 2. On May 19, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public Works issued a decision approving the Master Site Plan for The Landing ("Master Plan Approval").2 3. On May 19, 2006, attorney Peter Buck filed Articles of Incorporation and an Application to form a Nonprofit Corporation with the Washington Secretary of State to form a new corporation he called "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"). The Application states that ASE's Registered Agent is Peter Buck, the sole Director is Peter Buck, and the sole incorporator is Peter Buck.3 4. On May 25, 2006, Mr. Buck filed an appeal of the Planned Action Decision on behalf of ASE. In the appeal statement, Mr. Buck states that his law firm represents WEA Southcenter LLC ("Westfield"), the owner of a competing shopping mall, Westfield Southcenter. He further states that Westfield is contributing funds for the appeal. Westfield did not deny that it was behind the appeals to protect its economic interests.5 News articles suggest Westfield's parent company and related entities have employed similar tactics around the world.6 5. On May 30, 2006, ASE filed Articles of Amendment with the Secretary of State. The Articles of Amendment state that qualification for membership in ASE "shall be set out in the corporation's bylaws."7 The Articles of Amendment also state: "There are no See Planned Action Decision,attached as Exhibit A to Appeal Statement, May 25,2006. 2 See Master Plan Approval,attached as Exhibit A to Master Plan Appeal,June 1,2006. 3 See Exhibit A to Applicant's Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss First ASE Appeal for Lack of Standing, June 28,2006. 4 See Appeal Statement, May 25,2006,at 2. 5 Katy Dickey,a Westfield spokeswoman,stated: "Just as it's Westfield's responsibility to pursue and attract retail demand and enhance our assets,we have an obligation to our retailers, our shareholders and our customers to protect them or defend them. We wouldn't be doing our jobs if we were not constantly monitoring the market and assessing potential opportunities as well as potential threats." Craig Harris,Mall Owner Battles Renton Plan, SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER,July 14,2006,attached as EXHIBIT 1 to Declaration of Karen Therese,attached as EXHIBIT A to Applicant's Reply Memorandum to ASE Response on Motion to Dismiss ASE Appeals for Lack of Standing,July 24,2006. 6 See Exhibit D to Applicant's Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss First ASE Appeal for Lack of Standing, June 28,2006. See Exhibit B to Applicant's Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss First ASE Appeal for Lack of Standing, June 28,2006. members as of this date." Mr. Buck signed this document, dated May 25, 2006, as the Director and President. 6. On June 1, 2006, Mr. Buck filed an appeal of the Master Plan Approval on behalf of ASE. In this appeal, Mr. Buck again states that his law firm represents Westfield, and that Westfield is contributing funds for the appeal.$ 7. Under the Renton Municipal Code, an appellant must have standing to file an appeal.9 Applicant Harvest Partners and the City filed motions to dismiss the ASE appeals for lack of standing. 8. In response to the motions, ASE presented evidence of one "member," Brad Nicholson.10 The evidence included a "Membership Application" signed by Mr. Nicholson, and an unsworn declaration from ASE's "Director," Margaret Potter.' Margaret Potter is a former employee of Buck & Gordon, the law firm representing Westfield.12 Regarding the statement to the Office of the Secretary of State that ASE had no members, ASE stated this was a"scrivener's error," and that the filing instead should have said"There are no members with voting rights as of this date."13 The ASE Response did not include ASE's Bylaws or any other corporate records regarding membership in ASE. 9. On the eve of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner regarding ASE's standing, ASE filed additional documents with the parties and the Examiner. These documents included a sworn declaration from Mr. Buck, appended to which was an unsigned, undated "excerpt"from the ASE Bylaws regarding membership in ASE.14 According to Section 1.2 of the Bylaws excerpt, the members are only given certain limited voting rights, and "none of the Member(sic) shall have any other rights whatsoever."15 10. On August 22, 2006, the parties presented oral arguments on standing and other jurisdictional issues to the Hearing Examiner. 11. On September 5, 2006, the Hearing Examiner issued its decision dismissing the ASE appeals. According to the decision, "This office finds that ASE does not have standing. It is a mere shell created by the applicant's potential competitor, Southcenter/Westfield for the purpose of thwarting a competitor's proposed development."16 s See Master Plan Appeal,June 1,2006. 9 See RMC 4-9-200.N; RMC 4-8-110.E.d. 1°See Appellant Alliance for South End's Response to Applicant's Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, July 18,2006. 11 See Declaration of Margaret E. Potter, attached to Appellant Alliance for South End's Response to Applicant's Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Standing,July 18,2006. 12 See Applicant's Reply Memorandum to ASE Response on Motion to Dismiss ASE Appeals for Lack of Standing,July 24,2006. 13 Id, at¶4. 14 See Declaration of Peter L. Buck,August 18,2006,at Exhibit A. 15 Id. 16 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for Alliance for South End and Progressive Alliance for a Sustainable Southend, September 5,2006,at 8. CONCLUSIONS From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions: 1. The appellant bears the burden of establishing that it has standing.' ASE, as the appellant, has the burden of proof. 2. Standing is jurisdictional. 3. As an association, ASE has the burden of establishing that it has standing to bring these appeals on behalf of members with standing, or that it has standing on its own behalf. 4. ASE has never asserted that it has standing on its own behalf. Therefore, ASE has the burden to demonstrate it has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members. 5. Standing should exist as of the time the appeals are filed.18 Developments that occur following commencement of an action should not be the basis for standing.19 In this case, there was not only insufficient evidence of standing at the time the appeals were filed, but also at the close of the record. 6. It is no small matter for an organization to assert the right to sue on behalf of others. Courts have found that such a right requires the representational relationship to be a strong one, in order to ensure the fidelity of the organization to those for whom it claims to speak.20 7. ASE's Articles of Incorporation provide evidence that there were no members at the time the appeal was filed. ASE claims this was scrivener's error. Even assuming ASE's view of the evidence, ASE offered evidence of only one member, Mr. Nicholson, who could not vote and who had no input over the ASE Board, officers, Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, or litigation. The member was therefore no different than a mere bystander. Thus, even if ASE had a member at the time the appeals were filed, ASE has failed to produce credible evidence to establish that its member guides ASE's actions or has control over the organization, or that the organization is acting "on behalf' of the member. Rather, all evidence produced by ASE, including the excerpts from the ASE Bylaws, suggests the opposite—ASE's member has no meaningful control over the association. 8. ASE is merely a shell corporation, established solely to delay the development of an economic competitor. ASE lacks associational standing to bring these appeals. "See Concerned Olympia Residents for the Environment v. City of Olympia, 33 Wn.App. 677,683,657 P.2d 790 (1983). 18 See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 570 n. 5 (1992)("[S]tanding is to be determined as of the commencement of the suit"). Appellants must have standing to file an appeal. RMC 4-9-200.N;RMC 4-8-110.E.d. 19 See, e.g.,Perry v. Village of Arlington Heights, 186 F.3d 826, 830(1999)("It is not enough for[a party]to attempt to satisfy the requirements of standing as the case progresses. The requirements of standing must be satisfied from the outset..."). 20 Friends of Tilden Park v. District of Columbia, 806 A.2d 1201, 1209(D.C.2002). `SY O� ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND ;, , LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT • MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • The Washington State Department of Transportation will hold a Full Access Control Hearing for the I-405 / I-5 to SR 169 State 2 - Widening and SR 515 Interchange project on March 20, 2007 at 6:00 PM in Renton City Hall Council Chambers, 1055 S. Grady Way. The project includes the construction of an additional lane in each direction between SR 167 and SR 169 and a new full access controlled half-interchange at SR 515 (Talbot Road). The hearing will take approximately two hours, and attendees will be given an overview description and purpose of the project. Oral testimony will be allowed. FIRE DEPARTMENT • On Friday, March 3, 2007 a house fire occurred in the Highlands Neighborhood at a home on Index Court NE. The Renton Fire Department was able to rescue the occupant, and limit damage to the home. The occupant was transported, in serious condition, by King County paramedics, but, unfortunately, died a day later. Though an official cause of death has not been determined, this could likely be City's first fire-related death in over two years. The last fire-related fatality in Renton occurred in January of 2005. • This Wednesday evening, March 14, 2007, at 7:00 PM, the Fire Department will be hosting a neighborhood meeting at Fire Station #12, located at 1209 Kirkland Avenue N.E. The meeting will be open the entire community and will focus, not only on this incident, but also provide information on how to prevent similar occurrences and prepare for emergencies that might occur in the home. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • As part of Maplewood Golf Course's ongoing effort towards Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Certification, Eagle Scout Jordan Fagerlie and Boy Scout Troop #448 of Renton's St. Anthony's Parrish, built and installed eleven bird nesting boxes in unplayable areas on the golf course last weekend. Eagle Scout Fagerlie will assist in monitoring and identifying the birds that nest in these boxes throughout the year. The estimated completion date for Maplewood Golf Course to achieve certification is Spring of 2008. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: kitie Submitting Data: For Agenda of: March 12, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/Mayor's Office Staff Contact Marty Wine, Asst. CAO (x6526) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. X Cable Franchise Renewal Correspondence.. Basic Programming Rate Regulation and Network Ordinance • Upgrade Add-On Calculation Resolution X FCC Forms 1235 & 1240 Rate Review & Settlement Old Business Exhibits: New Business Resolution and Settlement Agreement Study Sessions Settlement Letter from Comcast to City Information Front Range Consulting, Inc. Consultant Report Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Committee of the Whole Legal Dept X Set Public Hearing for March 26, 2007 Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City is conducting due diligence for the cable franchise renewal process to determine whether Comcast is in compliance with the City's cable franchise and applicable laws and regulations. • Comcast files an annual FCC Form 1240 with the City to justify maximum permitted rates for basic cable programming. The City's cable franchise renewal consultant review found that Comcast improperly included the Business and Occupations tax in the basic service rate (allowing inflationary increases in the tax); and excluded the FCC regulatory fee in its calculation of the maximum permitted rate(contrary to recent FCC requirements). • Comcast's predecessor filed FCC Form 1235 with the City in 1999, allowing the cable company to recoup system upgrade costs in its rates. The preliminary Form allowed Comcast to charge subscribers an additional $1.16 per month per subscriber based on projected upgrades. Though the upgrade was completed, Comcast did not file a final FCC Form 1235. At the same time, a franchise fee review is now underway to audit Comcast franchise fee payments. The City has requested affiliated advertising revenues of Comcast, but it has refused since it disagrees that advertising revenues should be included in franchise fee calculations. A proposed settlement of outstanding issues includes: elimination of the FCC Form 1235 fee; elimination of the B&O tax from the basic service rate and Form 1240 filing; and Comcast would provide affiliated advertising revenue information. The settlement will result in completion of the franchise fee review; lower maximum permitted rates; and subscriber refunds in some cases. As reported to Council on February 5, the consulting team recommends acceptance of the settlement to move the franchise fee review forward. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set a public hearing to consider adoption of Settlement Documents and related terms, set maximum basic kt,, programming service rates, and authorize the City Clerk to execute the Settlement Agreement. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REGARDING THE BASIC PROGRAMMING SERVICE RATE SET FORTH IN THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FORM 1240 FILED ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1, 2006, AND THE NETWORK UPGRADE ADD-ON CALCULATED IN THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FORM 1235 FILED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 1999. WHEREAS, the City of Renton, Washington (hereinafter the"City") is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to Washington law; and WHEREAS, Section 623 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 543, as amended, and applicable rules authorize local franchising authorities, such as the City, to regulate rates for basic service programming and the amount of any network upgrade add-on so, allocated to basic service subscribers; and WHEREAS, the City is certified as a rate regulation authority pursuant to rules of the Federal Communications Commission(hereinafter"FCC"); and WHEREAS, Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. (hereinafter"Comcast") filed with the City a preliminary FCC Form 1235 with the City on or about March 1, 1999, purporting to set forth and justify a $1.16 network upgrade add-on to recover the costs of a network upgrade for the City that was completed in June 1999 (the"Preliminary FCC Form 1235"); and WHEREAS, the $1.16 network upgrade add-on is based on projected cost data; and WHEREAS, Comcast has not filed a final FCC Form 1235 with the City that includes actual network upgrade cost data; and `Awry 1 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, Comcast could attempt to add the $1.16 network upgrade add-on to the 4411110 basic service rate each month through the year 2014; and WHEREAS, Comcast filed with the City an FCC Form 1240 on or about April 1, 2006, purporting to set forth and justify the rate it could charge to subscribers in the City for basic service programming (hereinafter the"2006 FCC Form 1240"); and WHEREAS,the City retained Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("FRC") to review the 2006 FCC Form 1240 and Warren O'Hearn to review the Preliminary FCC Form 1235 and any final FCC Form 1235. Front Range Consulting, Inc. and Warren O'Hearn are collectively referred to in this Resolution as the"Consultants;" and WHEREAS,based on its review of the 2006 FCC Form 1240, FRC prepared a final report concerning the 2006 FCC Form 1240, which report contains various findings, conclusions and recommendations, and submitted that final report to the City in October 2006 (hereinafter the "FRC Report"), which report is attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the FRC Report recommends that the Business& Occupational tax be excluded from the basic service rate beginning with the FCC Form 1240 to be filed on or about April 1, 2007; and WHEREAS,the FRC Report further recommends that, beginning with the April 1, 2007, FCC Form 1240 (the"2007 FCC Form 1240"), Comcast be required to include its actual total payment of FCC regulatory fees on line 708 of Worksheet 7 and the actual recoveries from subscribers on Worksheet 8; and WHEREAS, Comcast and the Consultants have discussed the 2006 FCC Form 1240 and the Preliminary FCC Form 1235 and have reached a proposed settlement of outstanding issues; and 2 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the terms of the proposed settlement offered by Comcast are set forth in a January 23, 2007, letter from Comcast to the City, and a proposed Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), both of which are attached hereto (collectively, the"Settlement Documents"); and WHEREAS, the Consultants recommend that the City approve the Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City believes it is in the public interest to avoid the delay, uncertainty and costs associated with the continued review of the 2006 FCC Form 1240 and the Preliminary FCC Form 1235, and any subsequent litigation before the FCC; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. err, SECTION H. The City hereby adopts the Settlement Documents, and approves the settlement terms contained therein. The Settlement Documents and the FRC Report addressing the 2006 FCC Form 1240 are incorporated into this Resolution by reference. The City reserves all of its rights and remedies with respect to issues, rates and calculations not expressly addressed in the Settlement Documents. SECTION III, Comcast's maximum permitted rate for basic programming service is hereby set at $14.3566, exclusive of franchise fees and FCC regulatory fees, upon the expiration of the applicable review period. Comcast shall maintain a basic programming service rate of $12.48, exclusive of franchise fees and FCC regulatory fees, through and including July 1, 2007. In the FCC Form 1240 to be filed with the City on or about April 1, 2007, Comcast shall utilize a rate of$13.4066 on Module A, Line Al. FCC regulatory fees will be included in the 2007 FCC 3 RESOLUTION NO. Form 1240, and in all future FCC Forms 1240 filed with the City, as specified in the Settlement id Documents, and the Business and Occupational Tax shall be excluded from the 2007 FCC Form '" 1240, and all future FCC Forms 1240 filed with the City, as provided in the Settlement Documents. SECTION IV. The City and Comcast shall treat the Preliminary FCC Form 1235 as the"final" FCC Form 1235 for purposes of complying with FCC rules and precedent. In accordance with the Settlement Documents, Comcast shall at no time charge the network upgrade add-on calculated in the Preliminary FCC Form 1235. SECTION V. The rates set herein will govern Comcast's basic programming service rate until Comcast lawfully implements a further rate change pursuant to applicable law. SECTION VI. Comcast may charge basic programming rates less than $12.48, exclusive of franchise fees and FCC regulatory fees, as long as such rates are consistent with applicable law and are applied in a uniform and nondiscriminatory way, pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. SECTION VIL Comcast shall not charge any rate higher than $12.48, exclusive of franchise fees and FCC regulatory fees, unless such rate is first filed with and approved by the City, in accordance with applicable law and regulations, including but not limited to the notice requirements imposed by 47 C.F.R. § 76.1603, or as otherwise expressly permitted under applicable law and regulations. SECTION VIII. This Resolution constitutes the written decision required by 47 C.F.R. § 76.936(a). 4 RESOLUTION NO. SECTION IX. This Resolution shall be released to the public and to Comcast, and a public notice shall be published stating that this Resolution has been issued and is available for review, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 76.936(b). SECTION X. The City's staff and elected and appointed officials are authorized to take all actions necessary or desired to approve and execute the Settlement Agreement. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1249:3/6/07:ma 5 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into this day of , 2007, between the City of Renton, Washington("City"), Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. (collectively, "Comcast" or the"Company"). The City and Comcast are collectively referred to herein as the"Parties." Recitals WHEREAS, the City is certified as a rate regulation authority pursuant to rules of the Federal Communications Commission(hereinafter"FCC"); and WHEREAS, Comcast filed with the City a"pre-approval" FCC Form 1235 with the City on or about March 1, 1999, purporting to set forth and justify a $1.16 network upgrade add-on to recover the costs of a network upgrade for the City that was completed in June 1999 (the"Preliminary FCC Form 1235"); and WHEREAS, the $1.16 network upgrade add-on is based on projected cost data; and WHEREAS, Comcast has not filed a final FCC Form 1235 with the City that includes actual network upgrade cost data; and WHEREAS, Comcast could attempt to add the$1.16 network upgrade add-on to `S/ the basic service rate each month through the year 2014; and WHEREAS, Comcast filed with the City an FCC Form 1240 on or about April 1, 2006, purporting to set forth and justify the rate it could charge to subscribers in the City for basic service programming (hereinafter the"2006 FCC Form 1240"); and WHEREAS, the City retained rate analysts to review the Preliminary FCC Form 1235 and the 2006 FCC Form 1240; and WHEREAS, the rate analysts identified certain disputed issues concerning the Preliminary FCC Form 1235 and the 2006 FCC Form 1240; and WHEREAS, Comcast has proposed to settle the outstanding issues identified by the rate analysts, as set forth in a January 23, 2007, letter from Comcast to the City; and WHEREAS, the City believes it is in the public interest to avoid the delay, uncertainty and costs associated with the continued review of the 2006 FCC Form 1240 and the Preliminary FCC Form 1235, and any subsequent litigation before the FCC. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of premises, promises, undertakings and mutual covenants of the Parties and other good and sufficient consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree to the terms below: Now Agreement FCC Form 1235 1. The Preliminary FCC Form 1235 and its calculated $1.16 network upgrade add- on shall be considered the"Final"FCC Form 1235 for purposes of complying with FCC rules and the instructions for FCC Form 1235, and the Company agrees that it is barred from filing any additional FCC Forms 1235 addressing costs incurred with respect to the network upgrade identified in the Preliminary FCC Form 1235. Comcast represents and agrees that the upgrade costs for the Renton, Washington cable system have been fully recovered for the applicable period represented in the Preliminary FCC Form 1235. Comcast also agrees that it shall at no time charge the network upgrade add-on set forth in the Preliminary FCC Form 1235. The City hereby releases Comcast from any and all future refund liability arising out of the Preliminary FCC Form 1235. FCC Form 1240 2. The City approves by default the 2006 FCC Form 1240 that derived a maximum permitted rate of$14.3566, which rate includes the Business & Occupational ("B&O")taxes but excludes the FCC Regulatory Fees and Preliminary FCC Form "" 1235 add-on amount. The City hereby releases Comcast from any and all refund liability attributable to its treatment of the B&O tax in prior rate filings and in the 2006 FCC Form 1240. 3. Comcast shall maintain its current Basic Service Rate of$12.48, exclusive of franchise fees and the FCC Regulatory Fees, until at least July 1, 2007. Comcast may charge basic programming rates less than $12.48, exclusive of franchise fees and FCC Regulatory Fees, as long as such rates are consistent with applicable law and are applied in a uniform and nondiscriminatory way, pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 4. The Company agrees to modify the FCC Form 1240 to be filed with City on or about April 1, 2007 (the"2007 FCC Form 1240") as follows: a. Module A, Line Al, Current Maximum Permitted Rate shall be reduced to $13.4066. b. Worksheet 7, External Costs for the True-up and Projected Period, Line 708, Commission Regulatory Fees for Period, shall be completed with the FCC Regulatory Fees appropriate for each period in the 2007 FCC Form 1240, and all subsequent FCC Forms 1240 shall reflect, subject to applicable FCC regulations then in effect, the actual total FCC Regulatory "fir 2 Fee payment made by Comcast for the applicable true up period and Comcast's projection of the total FCC Regulatory Fee payment in the applicable projected period. c. Worksheet 8, True-Up Rate Charged, Lines 801-812, shall include the current basic service rate and FCC Regulatory Fees. The B&O tax amount of$0.95 included in the 2006 FCC Form 1240 shall be excluded from the 2007 FCC Form 1240. B&O taxes shall be excluded from all future FCC Forms 1240 filed with the City. 5. The City reserves all of its rights and remedies with respect to the 2007 FCC Form 1240, except those rights that are explicitly waived in this Settlement Agreement. Franchise Fee Audit Document Request 6. The Company shall agree pursuant to a separate side letter that, upon City execution of this Settlement Agreement, it shall provide to Front Range Consulting, Inc., no later than two business days after the date of said execution, the gross monthly amount of the advertising revenues(advertising revenue plus advertising sales commissions) for the audit period where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company is affiliated with an advertising agency that receives commissions, such as National Cable Communications(NCC) and the applicable regional advertising entity, and the net amount(advertising revenue) where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company does not have such an affiliated **4001 interest. The provision of this information to Front Range Consulting, Inc. shall be without prejudice to the Company's right to dispute any audit findings, or the requirement of Comcast to pay franchise fees based on the provision of such information provided to Front Range Consulting, Inc. The City, however, reserves all of its rights and remedies with respect to Comcast's compliance with franchise provisions and applicable laws and decisions pertaining to the payment of franchise fees. General Terms and Conditions 7. Neither Comcast nor any of its affiliates or subsidiaries will take any action to challenge any provision of this Settlement Agreement as contrary to or unenforceable under applicable laws or regulations, nor will they participate with any other person in any such challenge. 8. The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission of error on the part of either party and shall not be deemed to be an admission of any such error by either party in any civil or administrative proceeding. 3 9. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto, and their successors in interest, assigns, personal Now. representatives and heirs. 10. This Settlement Agreement is freely and voluntarily entered into by the Parties, without any duress or coercion, and after each party has consulted with its counsel. Each party hereto has carefully and completely read all of the terms and provisions of this Settlement Agreement. 11. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 12. The Parties further agree that this Settlement Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC By: Its: COMCAST OF WASHINGTON IV, INC. By: Its: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON By: Its: Attest: 4 Comcast o m ca st® 1500 MarketStreet Philadelphia,PA 19102 Peter H.Feinberg Associate General Counsel 215.320.7934 Tel 215.320.3572 Fax FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE January 23, 2007 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Marty Wine Renton City Hall—7th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Resolution of Comcast's FCC Form 1235 and 2006 FCC Form 1240 Rates for City of Renton, WA Dear Ms. Wine: Nod I am writing on behalf of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and its affiliate Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. (collectively, "Comcast"or the "Company") to propose the resolution of issues identified during a review of Comcast's FCC Form 1235 and FCC Form 1240 for 2006 for the City of Renton, WA (the "City"), by City's consultant Front Range Consulting, Inc. (the "Consultant"). Comcast believes that the following proposal as set forth herein, which reflects recent discussions between Comcast and City's Consultant, would minimize the substantial administrative burdens, costs, uncertainty, and delay otherwise associated with the rate review process. TERMS OF AGREEMENT RE 2006 RATE REVIEW: FCC Form 1235 1. The "pre-approval" version FCC Form 1235 filed March 1, 1999 and its calculated $1.16 network upgrade add-on shall be considered the "Final"version FCC Form 1235 for purposes of complying with FCC rules and the instructions for FCC Form 1235, and the Company agrees that it is barred from filing any additional FCC Forms 1235 addressing costs incurred with respect to the network upgrade identified in the March 1, 1999, FCC Form 1235. The settlement agreement shall state that the upgrade costs for the Renton system have been fully recovered for the applicable period represented in the form, and that Comcast shall at no time charge the network upgrade add-on set forth in the March 1, low Marty Wine January 23, 2007 Page 2 1999, FCC Form 1235. The agreement shall release the Company from any future refund liability arising out of the March 1, 1999 filing of the FCC Form 1235 for Renton. FCC Form 1240 2. City approves by default the FCC Form 1240 filed on April 1, 2006, which derived a maximum permitted rate of$14.3566,which includes the Business & Occupational ("B&O") taxes but excludes the FCC Regulatory Fees and FCC Form 1235 add-on amount. The settlement agreement shall release Comcast from any refund liability attributable to its treatment of the B&O tax in prior rate filings and in the April 1, 2006, FCC Form 1240. The City reserves all of its rights with respect to the April 1, 2006, FCC Form 1240, except those rights that are explicitly waived in the settlement agreement. 3. Comcast shall maintain its current Basic Service Rate of$12.48 until at least July 1, �wrr 2007. 4. The Company agrees to modify the 2007 FCC Form 1240, to be filed with City on or about April 1, 2007, as follows: a. Module A, Line Al, Current Maximum Permitted Rate will be reduced to $13.4066. b. Worksheet 7, External Costs for the True-up and Project Period, Line 708, Commission Regulatory Fees for Period, will be completed with the FCC Commission Regulatory Fees appropriate for each period in the 2007 FCC Form 1240, and all subsequent FCC Forms 1240 shall reflect, subject to applicable FCC regulations then in effect, the actual total FCC Regulatory Fee payment made by Comcast for the applicable true up period and Comcast's projection of the total FCC Regulatory Fee payment in the applicable projected period. c. Worksheet 8, True-Up Rate Charged, Lines 801-812, will include the current basic service rate and FCC Regulatory Fees. The B&O tax amount of$0.95 included in the April 1, 2006, FCC Form 1240 will be excluded from the April 1, 2007, FCC Form 1240. B&O taxes will be excluded from all future FCC Forms 1240 filed with the City. 5. The City reserves all of its rights and remedies with respect to the April 1, 2007, FCC Form 1240, except those rights that are explicitly waived in the settlement agreement. 1400 Marty Wine January 23, 2007 Page 3 Franchise Fee Audit Document Request 6. The Company shall agree pursuant to a separate side letter that, upon City execution of the settlement agreement, it will provide to the Consultant by close-of-business on January 26, 2007, or no later than two business days after City execution of the settlement agreement, in the event City execution occurs after January 26, 2007, the gross monthly amount of the advertising revenues (advertising revenue plus advertising sales commissions) for the audit period where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company is affiliated with an advertising agency that receives commissions, such as National Cable Communications (NCC)and the applicable regional advertising entity, and the net amount(advertising revenue)where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company does not have such an affiliated interest. The provision of this information to City's Consultant shall be without prejudice to the Company's right to dispute any audit findings, or the requirement of Comcast to pay franchise fess based on the provision of such information provided to the Consultant. 7. The foregoing terms are subject to the approval of City. `in erely, eter . Fe' berg cc: Mr. Richard Treich Michael Bradley, Esq. Stephen Guzzetta, Esq. Nftr- Final Report To The City of Renton, Washington Regarding the FCC Forms 1240 filed by Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. On or About w April 1, 2006 Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("FRC") is pleased to provide the City of Renton, Washington (the "City"),this final report regarding the FCC Form 1240 rate filing made by Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. ("Comcast") on or about April 1, 2006 ("1240 Filing"). The Form 1240 is filed annually and is used to calculate the maximum permitted rate for basic cable service. Under the rate regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), the City may review Comcast's Form 1240 to determine whether the calculated maximum permitted rate comports with FCC rules, decisions and orders. If the City wishes to take any action concerning Comcast's 2006 Form 1240 it must do so prior to March 31, 2007. I. Report Synopsis FRC has reviewed the 1240 Filing. As detailed below, the City has several options with regards to this filing. Those options are: 1. The City could accept the 1240 Filing as submitted by Comcast, without making any `'�rrr Front Range Consulting,Inc. changes; 2. The City could accept the 1240 Filing with a requirement for Comcast to modify its next FCC Form 1240 filing with respect to the treatment of the FCC regulatory fee and the exclusion of the Business and Occupational ("B&O") tax from the Basic Service Rate; or 3. The City could proceed with the Phase II investigation of the current Form 1240 filing and prepare a revised FCC Fonn 1240 correcting the FCC Regulatory Fee treatment and excluding the B&O tax from the Basic Service Maximum Permitted Rate ("MPR").1 FRC believes that all of these options are consistent with the FCC rules but considering the least disruptive customer approach, FRC recommends that the City consider adopting Option 2. Before having the City adopt a rate order based on Option 2, FRC recommends that the City authorize FRC and Bradley & Guzzetta to open informal settlement discussions with Comcast to see if a settlement could be reached on Option 2 without having the City issue a rate order. Option 2 would benefit consumers by requiring Comcast, instead of the City, to make the necessary adjustments for the B&O tax and the FCC Regulatory in its next Form 1240 filing. II. Scope of Report FRC was retained by the City to perform a review of the 1240 Filing by Comcast and to report to the City any adjustments which could be made to this filings. FRC was requested to prepare this report based on material filed with the City and other publicly available information.2 FRC prepared one data request (dated September 15, 2006) and Comcast responded to that request on September 29, 2006. In addition, FRC had a conference call with Ms. Robbin Pepper and Mr. Jim Waechter of Comcast prior to the submission of the data request to discuss the treatment of the business and operations ("B&O") tax in the filing. III. Summary of Form 1240 Filing Comcast filed the 1240 Filing on or about April 1, 2006 as required by the FCC rules. Comcast's 1240 Filing contains a proposed maximum permitted basic service rate of$14.36, which is a$0.96 (7.16%) increase over last year's filed maximum permitted basic service rate of$13.40. The $14.36 maximum permitted rate suggested by the 1240 Filing includes To the extent the City adopts Option 3,the City would also be entitled to lower the inflation factor to the most current inflation rate released by the FCC. Currently,this would be 3.12%compared to the 3.31%included in the 1240 Filing. 2 This review was limited to an analysis of the 1240 Filing. The Form 1205 submitted by Comcast will be reviewed as part of the ongoing national review project. The Form 1235 is also being reviewed and will the subject of a separate report. The City should also preserve its rights to modify the Form 1240 depending on the outcome of the Form 1235 review, as the results of that review may affect the rates shown on Worksheet 8 of the Form 1240. October 25, 2006 Page 2 of 6 '44010 � r Front Range Consulting, Inc. 'Ulnr' the recovery of the B&O tax on the Basic Service rate. For example, in the July to November 2005 period covered by the prior Form 1240 filing, Comcast was only charging a Basic Service rate of$12.48 but added the B&O tax of$0.83 to the subscriber's bill resulting in a total bill for Basic Service of$13.31. The resulting $13.31 is just below the filed MPR in last year's filing of$13.40 IV. Issues Identified FRC investigated three areas with respect to the 1240 Filing: • Identification of Franchise-Related costs; • Treatment of the FCC Regulatory fee in the Form 1240; and • Treatment of the B&O tax in the Form 1240. From these investigations, FRC has concluded: • Comcast has incorrectly treated the FCC Regulatory fee outside of the Form 1240, which is contrary to the Form instructions and a recent FCC Order; and • Comcast has improperly included the B&O tax in the Form 1240. In both cases, FRC believes that these improper treatments have resulted in Comcast over- recovering its costs associated with the regulated Basic Service tier. `New IV(a) Franchise-Related Costs FRC was initially concerned that Comcast had failed to include franchise-related costs in its Form 1240 and was including these costs in the"base rate." This treatment would be contrary to the FCC Form instructions for handling franchise-related costs. Comcast was asked to provide the franchise-related costs for the City of Renton at three intervals: (1) August 1994; (2) each month of the true-up period(the current true-up period is December 2004 to November 2005) and (3) each month of the projected period (the current projected period in July 2006 to June 2007). Comcast, in its September 29, 2006, respond to FRC's data request, refused to provide the amount of the franchise-related costs as of August 1994 by suggesting that "August 1994 is outside the scope of the current Form 1240 ..." FRC disagrees that the amount of the franchise-related costs as of August 1994 is irrelevant. To the extent Comcast was incurring franchise-related costs pursuant to the City's franchise, the amount is embedded in the basic service rate and must be separately identified on the rate filings submitted by Comcast since 1994 in order to prevent the FCC's forms and basic service rate regulation process from increasing the amount of embedded franchise-related costs by the inflation factor used on the "base rate." FRC has not been able to determine based on the Comcast response and the current franchise agreement if there are any franchise-related costs that Comcast is entitled to recover. In any event, FRC has concluded that Comcast is not including any such costs in the 1240 Filing. Consequently, no adjustment to the Form 1240 Filing appears to be necessary with respect to franchise-related costs. FRC would like to remind the City during the ongoing franchise re-negotiations, that if Comcast is required to provide any new franchise requirements that only those costs in October 25, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Front Range Consulting,Inc. excess of the costs currently being incurred by Comcast can be included in a subsequent rate filing. Comcast should be directed to provide the original FCC 1200 where such franchise- related costs were supposed to be identified. IV(b) FCC Regulatory Fee The 1240 Filing does not include the FCC regulatory fee on line 708 of Worksheet 7 for the true-up and projected periods, as required by the Form 1240 instructions.3 This omission is inconsistent with a recent FCC decision which addressed the proper treatment of FCC regulatory fees when a cable operator files a Form 1240 and utilizes the annual rate adjustment methodology. See In the Matter of Comcast of Minnesota, Inc.: Order Setting Basic Service and Equipment Rates (Arden Hills, et al.), Order, 20 FCC Red 20157 (Rel. Dec. 21, 2005) In the Comcast of Minnesota decision, the FCC concluded that it was not appropriate for a cable operator to exclude the FCC regulatory fee from the Form 1240 and then to recover these costs as a separate bill itemization, as Comcast is doing in the City. As importantly, the FCC specifically determined that the FCC regulatory should be included on line 708 of Worksheet 7 of the Form 1240.4 With respect to the FCC regulatory fee issue, FRC asked Comcast in data request 2 b): Concerning Line 708 of the Projected Period,please explain why Comcast has not included any amounts for the project FCC regulatory fee consistent with the FCC's determination in Comcast of Minnesota, Inc.: Order Setting Basic Service and Equipment Rates, 20 FCC Rcd 20157 (Rel. Dec. 21, 2005). Comcast responded: ,,i The FCC regulatory fees change year over year to an amount not always evenly divided by 12 months. This creates an unnecessary amount of confusion from an operational and subscriber standpoint, especially when you consider the net effect of leaving the fees in the form or removing them from the form has no impact on the net Maximum Permitted Rate. Therefore, Comcast has not included any amounts online 708 of the Projected Period. FRC disagrees with Comcast's response and treatment of the FCC regulatory fee. First,the FCC has made clear(in a case dealing with a Comcast entity,no less) that FCC regulatory fees must be included in the Form 1240. Comcast's 1240 Filing therefore plainly violates Comcast of Minnesota Order. Such a violation may constitute a breach of the City's franchise. FRC also disagrees with Comcast's assertion that this treatment of the FCC regulatory fee has"no impact"on the basic service rate. Comcast currently pays the regulatory fee based on the number of subscribers as of December of each year in September of the next year. It does not pay based on the number of subscribers each month. Looking at the situation in the City, Comcast has suggested that the number of subscribers for December 2004 was 16,475. That number grows to approximately 17,000 by December 2005 and is projected to be 18,077 for 3 The instruction for line 708 clearly and explicitly directs a cable operator to"[e]nter the total Commission regulatory fee for the period"on line 708. 4 See Comcast of Minnesota,20 FCC Rcd. at 20165-66. October 25, 2006 Page 4 of 6 ,e1".\'(\4\N Front Range Consulting,Inc. `fir December 2006. As shown on the hypothetical example attached to this Report,Comcast will be over-recovering its costs associated with the FCC regulatory fee. The hypothetical example assumes that the$0.72 per year amount for the FCC regulatory fee remains the same for illustrative purposes. Based on the assumed 0.5% assumed growth in subscribers, for the period from September to August in a hypothetical year, Comcast is over-recovering the cost by a total of$148.47 for the rate period. While the amount is fairly small in comparison to the overall revenues received by Comcast,the over-recovery will be eliminated if Comcast adheres to the FCC instructions and the Comcast of Minnesota Order. FRC recommends that Comcast be required to include the actual payment made each September to the federal government for the FCC regulatory fee on line 708 of Worksheet 7 of FCC Form 1240 and to include the amount if separately itemized on subscriber's bill as part of the rates shown on Worksheet 8 of the Form 1240. Doing so will eliminate any potential over- or under-recovery of the FCC regulatory fee. IV(c) Inclusion of B&O Tax According to Comcast, the MPR for basic service determined by the 1240 Filing includes the recovery of the Washington State B&O tax. Comcast determines the B&O tax included in the MPR and removes that amount from the MPR in order to determine the amount for the Basic Service rate exclusive of the B&O tax. For example, last year's MPR was $13.31 which when divided by the B&O tax rate of 6.66% (1.06667) yields a basic rate without the B&O tax of$12.48.5 The B&O tax is shown as a separate line item on the subscriber's bill under the Fees and Taxes section of the bill. FRC does not believe that the B&O tax should be embedded in the MPR determined by the Form 1240. Inclusion of the B&O tax in the Form 1240 (with no separate identification on worksheet 7) allows the "base rate" which e includes the embedded B&O tax to be increased by the inflation factor in the Form 1240. In this way, Comcast is increasing the inflation adjustment as inflation is applied to the embedded B&O tax. This is incorrect and must be corrected or else Comcast will be over- recovering its costs during the rate period(because it will be over-recovering the tax amount, which has been increased by the inflation factor used by Comcast). More importantly, FRC does not believe that the B&O tax should have ever been included in the Form 1240 . According to Comcast, this B&O tax was included in the Form 1200 filed by Viacom in August 1994 and Comcast and its predecessors have maintained that original treatment. Irrespective of the initial treatment of the B&O tax in the Form 1200, Comcast must be required to eliminate this B&O tax from the current Form 1240 in order to prevent the Form from including inflation on the B&O tax . The correct way to reverse this inclusion would be for Comcast to re-do each of the Forms 1200, 1210 and 1240 from 1994 to the present. According to Comcast, they do not have these historical forms in which to make the necessary corrections. Moreover, Comcast claims that they have not been fully recovering the increases in the B&O tax but FRC cannot verify that "claim" without a complete review of all of the intervening rate forms which Comcast apparently does not have. FRC recommends that, at a minimum, Comcast be required to remove the B&O tax amount embedded in the current proposed maximum permitted basic service rate by removing that 5 The Rate Card therefore shows the$12.48 and a B&O tax is applied at the 6.667%rate($0.83)resulting in a combined rate of$13.31 that is equal to the MPR. fir► October 25, 2006 Page 5 of 6 Front Range Consulting, Inc. amount from the beginning"Al"rate used on the next Form 1240 submitted to the City on or about April 2007.6 In this way any over or under recoveries of past B&O taxes will be eliminated and going forward, the Form 1240 will not include as part of the"base rate"the B&O tax. V. Conclusion FRC recommends, as identified in Section I above, that the City issue a rate order addressing the 1240 Filing unless a settlement can be achieved with Comcast essentially following Option 2. The Order should follow the Option 2 recommendation which requires Comcast to revise the methodology that it uses with regards to the treatment of the FCC regulatory fee and also requires Comcast to exclude the B&O tax from the Basic Service MPR. These modifications should be required in Comcast's next annual rate filing made with the City on or about April 1, 2007. 6 FRC recommends that this be done by multiplying the current B&O tax rate times the MPR shown in the current 1240 Form of$14.36. October 25, 2006 Page 6 of 6 *0004 w Front Range Consulting, Inc. 4152 Bell Mountain Drive Castle Rock,CO 80104 Memorandum To: Mike Bradley and Steve Guzzetta From: Dick Treich Date: January 3, 2007 Re: City of Renton Privileged and Confidential Prepared at Request of Counsel Over the past several weeks, we have had discussions with representatives from Comcast regarding the ongoing disputes with respect to the FCC Forms 1235 and 1240, and the company's incomplete responses to the data request Front Range Consulting issued with respect to the franchise fee review. Specifically the disputes were: • Comcast has refused to provide the supporting documentation needed to perform an analysis of the network upgrade add-on calculated using the preliminary FCC Form 1235. Comcast has also refused to file a final Form 1235 as required by FCC precedent and the instructions for FCC Form 1235, which means the City of Renton is unable to compare the projected network upgrade costs in the preliminary Form 1235 with the actual network upgrade costs that would be included in the final Form 1235 if it was prepared and filed. The potential impact of the Form 1235 is significant, because Comcast may add the network upgrade add-on (which Comcast has calculated at $1.16) to the basic service rate each month; • Comcast has included the Business & Occupational ("B&O") tax in the FCC Form 1240 contrary to the FCC's rules regarding the preparation of the FCC Form 1240. This practice has permitted Comcast to receive inflationary increases on the tax each year over and above the actual fir' 41rr► Front Range Consulting,Inc. Mike Bradley and Steve Guzzetta January 3,2007 Page 2 Privileged and Confidential Prepared at Request of Counsel amount of the tax;1 • Comcast has not included the FCC Regulatory fee in the Form 1240 as required by FCC precedent and the form itself. This practice frequently leads to an over-recovery of the regulatory fee from subscribers;'` • Comcast has refused to provide the amount of advertising commissions retained by a Comcast affiliate as part of the review of the gross revenue determination associated with the franchise fee review. FRC is therefore unable to ascertain whether Comcast underpaid or failed to pay franchise fees on such commissions. Proposed Resolution Based on numerous discussions with Comcast, we have reached a proposed resolution of these outstanding issues as follows: • Comcast will no longer include any network upgrade add-on amount calculated utilizing FCC Form 1235 in its determination of the Basic Service Rate. Consequently, subscribers would be protected against Comcast's ability to add $1.16 per month (or any corrected network upgrade add-on amount) to the basic service rate through the year 2014; • Comcast will remove $0.95 from its 2006 maximum permitted rate ("MPR") of$14.36 to permanently eliminate the B&O tax from the Basic Service Rate; • Comcast will maintain its current Basic Service Rate of$12.48 until at least July 1, 2007; • Comcast will include the FCC Regulatory fee in its next FCC Form 1240 filing made with the City on or about April 1, 2007; and • Comcast will provide FRC with the amount of advertising commissions retained by an affiliate of Comcast for the franchise fee review period. Each of these items is more fully described below. FRC believes the City should accept and adopt these settlement terms because doing so will eliminate the need for the City to take formal action on the FCC Forms 1235 and 1240 and will eliminate the need to formally require Comcast to provide the data necessary to complete the franchise fee review. The settlement terms will also provide significant benefits to subscribers and will result in greater rate certainty. ' See the FRC Final Report on the Form 1240 dated October 25,2006. 2 Id Front Range Consulting,Inc. err Mike Bradley and Steve Guzzetta January 3,2007 Page 3 Privileged and Confidential Prepared at Request of Counsel FCC Form 1235 The preliminary FCC Form 1235 filed with the City allows Comcast to increase the Basic Service Rate by up to $1.16 per month for the period from July 1, 1999 until 2014. As this initial filing was a"pre-approval" filing, the City's consultant, Mr. Warren O'Hearn, requested supporting documentation for the "preliminary" filing and also a"final" filing as required by the FCC's rules and the instructions to Form 1235. Comcast's preliminary Form 1235 contains only projected network upgrade cost data. The final Form 1235 that Comcast has never filed is supposed to contain actual network upgrade cost data. The two forms are supposed to be reconciled so that basic service subscribers do not pay more than their appropriate share of Comcast's network upgrade add-on costs. Comcast has continuously refused to provide any of the supporting information or the final Form 1235 to Mr. O'Hearn. The City has the option to use the"best available information"and to have Mr. O'Hearn complete his review and have the City adopt a Rate Order on the Form 1235, which might reduce the amount of the network upgrade add-on calculated by Comcast. It is very likely that Comcast `,owe would appeal that Rate Order to the FCC, and that the City would incur significant legal costs defending the Rate Order. Notwithstanding the validity of the analysis performed by Mr. O'Hearn, FRC believes it would take the FCC at least a year to finish its review of the Comcast appeal. During this time, if the FCC granted a stay of the City's Rate Order, Comcast would be free to charge Renton subscribers up to $1.16 per month on top of the basic service rate. The current rate being charged for Basic Service does not include any add-on for the Form 1235. Therefore, we proposed to Comcast that instead of completing the Form 1235 review, that Comcast agree to eliminate any Form 1235 add-on from this point forward. Essentially, the subscribers would be protected against the potential add-on of$1.16 per month from 2006 to 2014. This savings is applicable to those subscribers that only take Basic Service from Comcast as Comcast is free to charge whatever it wants for the"Expanded" Basic Service and its Digital and Premium products. It is unlikely that any review completed by Mr. O'Hearn would reduce the network upgrade add-on to zero. Accordingly, the proposed settlement would likely benefit subscriber more than continuing with an analysis of the Form 1235 and adopting a rate order that will probably result in litigation. Front Range Consulting,Inc. Mike Bradley and Steve Guzzetta January 3,2007 Page 4 Privileged and Confidential Prepared at Request of Counsel FCC Form 1240 As described in the October 25, 2006 Final Report on the FCC Form 1240, FRC had identified two major problems with the way the Form 1240 was completed by Comcast. Those two problems were: (1) the exclusion of the FCC Regulatory fee from the determination of the Basic Service Rate, and (2) the inclusion of the B&O tax as part of the maximum permitted rate. The proposed resolution of these two problems is: (1) Comcast will include the FCC Regulatory fee in its next Form 1240 filing as required by FCC rules and a recent FCC Order, and (2) Comcast will remove$0.95 from the 2006 Maximum Permitted Rate as the starting point for its 2007 Form 1240 basic service filing. The B&O tax problem was the most difficult issue to address. Comcast had been following the same procedure with respect to the B&O tax as was originally used by Viacom in 1994. FRC does not believe that the approach taken by Viacom in 1994 was correct under the FCC rules but supposedly the B&O tax has been included in all subsequent filings according to Comcast's rate expert. While FRC does not have proof of this procedure being followed in all filings since 1994, �+ FRC does not doubt that Comcast's rate expert is likely to be correct. The correct way to fix this B&O tax problem would be to eliminate the B&O tax from each and every basic service rate filing made to the City from 1994 to the present. Unfortunately, Comcast was not able to provide these historical filings in order to complete that review, nor was the City able to locate complete records of the filings. The proposed settlement would eliminate a theoretical amount of the B&O tax from the rate by taking the current Basic Service rate of$12.48 times the current B&O tax rate of 7.58% to estimate the amount of the B&O tax embedded in the Maximum Permitted Rate calculated in the 2006 Form 1240. This results in an elimination of$0.95 from the 2006 Maximum Permitted Rate of $14.36 or a new Maximum Permitted Rate of$13.41, which would be included on line Al of Comcast's 2007 Form 1240, which will be filed with the City on or about April 1, 2007. Comcast has also agreed to maintain its current Basic Service Rate of$12.48 until at least July 1, 2007. This resolution of the B&O issue would also resolve any and all historical issues with the B&O tax inclusion in the Basic Service Rate and will eliminate any potential refund obligations and/or restatement of the historical rate related to the elimination of the B&O tax. In other words, the City would be forever waiving any ability it might have to review the B&O tax issue in prior basic service rate filings and to order refunds and rate reductions based on this B&O tax issue with respect to all basic service rate filings through and including the 2006 Form 1240. Beginning with the 2007 Front Range Consulting,Inc. Mike Bradley and Steve Guzzetta January 3,2007 Page 5 Privileged and Confidential Prepared at Request of Counsel Form 1240, Comcast would not include the B&O tax in the calculation of the basic service rate and therefore would not receive any inflation on the tax. FRC believes this resolution is reasonable. In order to complete the review of the historical B&O tax issue, FRC would have to either secure copies of these historical filings or use the "best available information." Either way, the analysis would be complex and expensive and may not result in a lowering of the Maximum Permitted Rate any greater that what has been proposed. FRC also believes that any estimate of the historical B&O tax amount that must be removed from the basic service rate would result in an appeal of the rate order to the FCC, even if the estimate is based on best available information in the absence of actual data furnished by Comcast. FRC also believes that Comcast wants to eliminate the B&O tax from the Basic Service Rate as it simplifies the preparation of the rate filing. While the elimination of the B&O tax will not theoretically affect the total billings to the subscriber(that is, the basic rate plus the B&O tax), the City's rate filing will be much easier for the City to perform a simplified review and Comcast will not receive inflation increases on the tax. FRC also believes that Nome Comcast's agreement to "freeze" its current rate of$12.48 does add additional rate stability in Renton. Franchise Fee Review Comcast has provided responses to the entire initial data request related to the franchise fee review to FRC except for the request regarding the advertising commissions retained by a Comcast affiliate. In its responses, Comcast has refused to provide this advertising commission information. While FRC understands that Comcast is likely to object to the payment of franchise fees on affiliated advertising commissions, FRC believes that the City has the right to request such information and Comcast is obligated to provide the requested data. Notwithstanding the Confidentiality Agreement signed by all parties, Comcast was still unwilling to provide the information. The proposed resolution of this issue is that Comcast has agreed to provide the requested data and Comcast will reserve its rights to object to the inclusion of the affiliated advertising commissions in the determination of gross revenues for purposes of calculating franchise fees. In essence, all that has been proposed is that Comcast will supply the missing information and the issue of the inclusion of these affiliated advertising commissions will be discussed after the issuance of the FRC Report on the Franchise Fee Review. Final Report "`OMIO To The City of Renton, Washington Regarding the FCC Forms 1240 filed by Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. On or About April 1, 2006 Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("FRC") is pleased to provide the City of Renton, Washington (the"City"),this final report regarding the FCC Form 1240 rate filing made by Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. ("Comcast") on or about April 1, 2006("1240 Filing"). The Form 1240 is filed annually and is used to calculate the maximum permitted rate for basic cable service. Under the rate regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), the City may review Comcast's Form 1240 to determine whether the calculated maximum permitted rate comports with FCC rules, decisions and orders. If the City wishes to take any action concerning Comcast's 2006 Form 1240 it must do so prior to March 31, 2007. I. Report Synopsis FRC has reviewed the 1240 Filing. As detailed below, the City has several options with regards to this filing. Those options are: 1. The City could accept the 1240 Filing as submitted by Comcast, without making any ,./7/*/:\c\. Front Range Consulting,Inc. changes; 2. The City could accept the 1240 Filing with a requirement for Comcast to modify its next FCC Form 1240 filing with respect to the treatment of the FCC regulatory fee and the exclusion of the Business and Occupational ("B&O")tax from the Basic Service Rate; or 3. The City could proceed with the Phase II investigation of the current Form 1240 filing and prepare a revised FCC Form 1240 correcting the FCC Regulatory Fee treatment and excluding the B&O tax from the Basic Service Maximum Permitted Rate ("MPR"). FRC believes that all of these options are consistent with the FCC rules but considering the least disruptive customer approach, FRC recommends that the City consider adopting Option 2. Before having the City adopt a rate order based on Option 2, FRC recommends that the City authorize FRC and Bradley& Guzzetta to open informal settlement discussions with Comcast to see if a settlement could be reached on Option 2 without having the City issue a rate order. Option 2 would benefit consumers by requiring Comcast, instead of the City, to make the necessary adjustments for the B&O tax and the FCC Regulatory in its next Form 1240 filing. II. Scope of Report FRC was retained by the City to perform a review of the 1240 Filing by Comcast and to report to the City any adjustments which could be made to this filings. FRC was requested to prepare this report based on material filed with the City and other publicly available information.2 FRC prepared one data request(dated September 15, 2006)and Comcast responded to that request on September 29, 2006. In addition, FRC had a conference call with Ms. Robbin Pepper and Mr. Jim Waechter of Comcast prior to the submission of the data request to discuss the treatment of the business and operations ("B&O")tax in the filing. III. Summary of Form 1240 Filing Comcast filed the 1240 Filing on or about April 1, 2006 as required by the FCC rules. Comcast's 1240 Filing contains a proposed maximum permitted basic service rate of$14.36, which is a$0.96 (7.16%)increase over last year's filed maximum permitted basic service rate of$13.40. The $14.36 maximum permitted rate suggested by the 1240 Filing includes 'To the extent the City adopts Option 3,the City would also be entitled to lower the inflation factor to the most current inflation rate released by the FCC. Currently,this would be 3.12%compared to the 3.31%included in the 1240 Filing. 2 This review was limited to an analysis of the 1240 Filing. The Form 1205 submitted by Comcast will be reviewed as part of the ongoing national review project. The Form 1235 is also being reviewed and will the subject of a separate report The City should also preserve its rights to modify the Form 1240 depending on the outcome of the Form 1235 review,as the results of that review may affect the rates shown on Worksheet 8 of *owe the Form 1240. October 25, 2006 Page 2 of 6 • Front Range Consulting,Inc. the recovery of the B&O tax on the Basic Service rate. For example, in the July to , November 2005 period covered by the prior Form 1240 filing, Comcast was only charging a Basic Service rate of$12.48 but added the B&O tax of$0.83 to the subscriber's bill resulting in a total bill for Basic Service of$13.31. The resulting $13.31 is just below the filed MPR in last year's filing of$13.40 IV. Issues Identified FRC investigated three areas with respect to the 1240 Filing: • Identification of Franchise-Related costs; • Treatment of the FCC Regulatory fee in the Form 1240; and • Treatment of the B&O tax in the Form 1240. From these investigations, FRC has concluded: • Comcast has incorrectly treated the FCC Regulatory fee outside of the Form 1240, which is contrary to the Form instructions and a recent FCC Order; and • Comcast has improperly included the B&O tax in the Form 1240. In both cases, FRC believes that these improper treatments have resulted in Comcast over- recovering its costs associated with the regulated Basic Service tier. IV(a) Franchise-Related Costs FRC was initially concerned that Comcast had failed to include franchise-related costs in its Form 1240 and was including these costs in the"base rate." This treatment would be contrary to the FCC Form instructions for handling franchise-related costs. Comcast was asked to provide the franchise-related costs for the City of Renton at three intervals: (1) August 1994; (2)each month of the true-up period (the current true-up period is December 2004 to November 2005) and(3)each month of the projected period (the current projected period in July 2006 to June 2007). Comcast, in its September 29, 2006, respond to FRC's data request, refused to provide the amount of the franchise-related costs as of August 1994 by suggesting that"August 1994 is outside the scope of the current Form 1240 ..." FRC disagrees that the amount of the franchise-related costs as of August 1994 is irrelevant. To the extent Comcast was incurring franchise-related costs pursuant to the City's franchise, the amount is embedded in the basic service rate and must be separately identified on the rate filings submitted by Comcast since 1994 in order to prevent the FCC's forms and basic service rate regulation process from increasing the amount of embedded franchise-related costs by the inflation factor used on the"base rate." FRC has not been able to determine based on the Comcast response and the current franchise agreement if there are any franchise-related costs that Comcast is entitled to recover. In any event, FRC has concluded that Comcast is not including any such costs in the 1240 Filing. Consequently, no adjustment to the Form 1240 Filing appears to be necessary with respect to franchise-related costs. FRC would like to remind the City during the ongoing franchise re-negotiations, that if Comcast is required to provide any new franchise requirements that only those costs in October 25, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Front Range Consulting,Inc. "%o : excess of the costs currently being incurred by Comcast can be included in a subsequent rate filing. Comcast should be directed to provide the original FCC 1200 where such franchise- related costs were supposed to be identified. IV(b) FCC Regulatory Fee The 1240 Filing does not include the FCC regulatory fee on line 708 of Worksheet 7 for the true-up and projected periods, as required by the Form 1240 instructions.3 This omission is inconsistent with a recent FCC decision which addressed the proper treatment of FCC regulatory fees when a cable operator files a Form 1240 and utilizes the annual rate adjustment methodology. See In the Matter of Comcast of Minnesota, Inc.: Order Setting Basic Service and Equipment Rates(Arden Hills, et al.), Order, 20 FCC Rcd 20157 (Rel. Dec. 21, 2005)In the Comcast of Minnesota decision, the FCC concluded that it was not appropriate for a cable operator to exclude the FCC regulatory fee from the Form 1240 and then to recover these costs as a separate bill itemization, as Comcast is doing in the City. As importantly, the FCC specifically determined that the FCC regulatory should be included on line 708 of Worksheet 7 of the Form 1240.4 With respect to the FCC regulatory fee issue, FRC asked Comcast in data request 2 b): Concerning Line 708 of the Projected Period, please explain why Comcast has not included any amounts for the project FCC regulatory fee consistent with the FCC's determination in Comcast of Minnesota, Inc.: Order Setting Basic Service and Equipment Rates, 20 FCC Rcd 20157 (Rel. Dec. 21, 2005). law Comcast responded: The FCC regulatory fees change year over year to an amount not always evenly divided by 12 months. This creates an unnecessary amount of confusion from an operational and subscriber standpoint, especially when you consider the net effect of leaving the fees in the form or removing them from the form has no impact on the net Maximum Permitted Rate. Therefore, Comcast has not included any amounts online 708 of the Projected Period. FRC disagrees with Comcast's response and treatment of the FCC regulatory fee. First, the FCC has made clear(in a case dealing with a Comcast entity, no less)that FCC regulatory fees must be included in the Form 1240. Comcast's 1240 Filing therefore plainly violates Comcast ofMinnesota Order. Such a violation may constitute a breach of the City's franchise. FRC also disagrees with Comcast's assertion that this treatment of the FCC regulatory fee has"no impact" on the basic service rate. Comcast currently pays the regulatory fee based on the number of subscribers as of December of each year in September of the next year. It does not pay based on the number of subscribers each month. Looking at the situation in the City, Comcast has suggested that the number of subscribers for December 2004 was 16,475. That number grows to approximately 17,000 by December 2005 and is projected to be 18,077 for 3 The instruction for line 708 clearly and explicitly directs a cable operator to"[e]nter the total Commission regulatory fee for the period"on line 708. 'fir✓ 4 See Comcast ofMinnesota,20 FCC Rcd.at 20165-66. October 25, 2006 Page 4 of 6 Front Range Consulting,Inc. December 2006. As shown on the hypothetical example attached to this Report, Comcast will be over-recovering its costs associated with the FCC regulatory fee. The hypothetical example assumes that the$0.72 per year amount for the FCC regulatory fee remains the same for illustrative purposes. Based on the assumed 0.5%assumed growth in subscribers,for the period from September to August in a hypothetical year, Comcast is over-recovering the cost by a total of$148.47 for the rate period. While the amount is fairly small in comparison to the overall revenues received by Comcast,the over-recovery will be eliminated if Comcast adheres to the FCC instructions and the Comcast ofMinnesota Order. FRC recommends that Comcast be required to include the actual payment made each September to the federal government for the FCC regulatory fee on line 708 of Worksheet 7 of FCC Form 1240 and to include the amount if separately itemized on subscriber's bill as part of the rates shown on Worksheet 8 of the Form 1240. Doing so will eliminate any potential over-or under-recovery of the FCC regulatory fee. IV(c)Inclusion of B&O Tax According to Comcast, the MPR for basic service determined by the 1240 Filing includes the recovery of the Washington State B&O tax. Comcast determines the B&O tax included in the MPR and removes that amount from the MPR in order to determine the amount for the Basic Service rate exclusive of the B&O tax. For example, last year's MPR was $13.31 which when divided by the B&O tax rate of 6.66% (1.06667)yields a basic rate without the B&O tax of$12.48.5 The B&O tax is shown as a separate line item on the subscriber's bill under the Fees and Taxes section of the bill. FRC does not believe that the B&O tax should be embedded in the MPR determined by the Form 1240. Inclusion of the B&O tax in the Form 1240 (with no separate identification on worksheet 7) allows the"base rate" which *4604 includes the embedded B&O tax to be increased by the inflation factor in the Form 1240. In this way, Comcast is increasing the inflation adjustment as inflation is applied to the embedded B&O tax. This is incorrect and must be corrected or else Comcast will be over- recovering its costs during the rate period(because it will be over-recovering the tax amount, which has been increased by the inflation factor used by Comcast). More importantly, FRC does not believe that the B&O tax should have ever been included in the Form 1240 . According to Comcast, this B&O tax was included in the Form 1200 filed by Viacom in August 1994 and Comcast and its predecessors have maintained that original treatment. Irrespective of the initial treatment of the B&O tax in the Form 1200, Comcast must be required to eliminate this B&O tax from the current Form 1240 in order to prevent the Form from including inflation on the B&O tax . The correct way to reverse this inclusion would be for Comcast to re-do each of the Forms 1200, 1210 and 1240 from 1994 to the present. According to Comcast, they do not have these historical forms in which to make the necessary corrections. Moreover, Comcast claims that they have not been fully recovering the increases in the B&O tax but FRC cannot verify that"claim" without a complete review of all of the intervening rate forms which Comcast apparently does not have. FRC recommends that, at a minimum, Comcast be required to remove the B&O tax amount embedded in the current proposed maximum permitted basic service rate by removing that 5 The Rate Card therefore shows the$12.48 and a B&O tax is applied at the 6.667%rate($0.83)resulting in a combined rate of$13.31 that is equal to the MPR. *IS October 25, 2006 Page 5 of 6 Front Range Consulting,Inc. off, amount from the beginning"Al"rate used on the next Form 1240 submitted to the City on or about April 2007.6 In this way any over or under recoveries of past B&O taxes will be eliminated and going forward, the Form 1240 will not include as part of the"base rate" the B&O tax. V. Conclusion FRC recommends, as identified in Section I above, that the City issue a rate order addressing the 1240 Filing unless a settlement can be achieved with Comcast essentially following Option 2. The Order should follow the Option 2 recommendation which requires Comcast to revise the methodology that it uses with regards to the treatment of the FCC regulatory fee and also requires Comcast to exclude the B&O tax from the Basic Service MPR. These modifications should be required in Comcast's next annual rate filing made with the City on or about April 1, 2007. 6 FRC recommends that this be done by multiplying the current B&O tax rate times the MPR shown in the softie.- current 1240 Form of$14.36. October 25, 2006 Page 6 of 6 Comcast® 5 Street Philadelphia,PA 19102 Peter H.Feinberg Associate General Counsel 215.320.7934 Tel 215.320.3572 Fax FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE January 23, 2007 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Marty Wine Renton City Hall—7th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Resolution of Comcast's FCC Form 1235 and 2006 FCC Form 1240 Rates for City of Renton, WA Dear Ms. Wine: I am writing on behalf of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and its affiliate Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. (collectively, "Comcast"or the"Company")to propose the resolution of issues identified during a review of Comcast's FCC Form 1235 and FCC Form 1240 for 2006 for the City of Renton, WA(the "City"), by City's consultant Front Range Consulting, Inc. (the "Consultant"). Comcast believes that the following proposal as set forth herein, which reflects recent discussions between Comcast and City's Consultant,would minimize the substantial administrative burdens,costs,uncertainty, and delay otherwise associated with the rate review process. TERMS OF AGREEMENT RE 2006 RATE REVIEW: FCC Form 1235 1. The"pre-approval"version FCC Form 1235 filed March 1, 1999 and its calculated$1.16 network upgrade add-on shall be considered the"Final"version FCC Form 1235 for purposes of complying with FCC rules and the instructions for FCC Form 1235, and the Company agrees that it is barred from filing any additional FCC Forms 1235 addressing costs incurred with respect to the network upgrade identified in the March 1, 1999,FCC Form 1235. The settlement agreement shall state that the upgrade costs for the Renton system have been fully recovered for the applicable period represented in the form, and that Comcast shall at no time charge the network upgrade add-on set forth in the March 1, Marty Wine January 23,2007 Page 2 1999,FCC Form 1235. The agreement shall release the Company from any future refund liability arising out of the March 1, 1999 filing of the FCC Form 1235 for Renton. FCC Form 1240 2. City approves by default the FCC Form 1240 filed on April 1, 2006,which derived a maximum permitted rate of$14.3566,which includes the Business&Occupational ("B&O")taxes but excludes the FCC Regulatory Fees and FCC Form 1235 add-on amount. The settlement agreement shall release Comcast from any refund liability attributable to its treatment of the B&O tax in prior rate filings and in the April I,2006, FCC Form 1240. The City reserves all of its rights with respect to the April 1,2006, FCC Form 1240, except those rights that are explicitly waived in the settlement agreement. 3. Comcast shall maintain its current Basic Service Rate of$12.48 until at least July 1, *iss. 2007. 4. The Company agrees to modify the 2007 FCC Form 1240,to be filed with City on or about April 1, 2007, as follows: a. Module A, Line Al, Current Maximum Permitted Rate will be reduced to $13.4066. b. Worksheet 7,External Costs for the True-up and Project Period,Line 708, Commission Regulatory Fees for Period,will be completed with the FCC Commission Regulatory Fees appropriate for each period in the 2007 FCC Form 1240, and all subsequent FCC Forms 1240 shall reflect,subject to applicable FCC regulations then in effect,the actual total FCC Regulatory Fee payment made by Comcast for the applicable true up period and Comcast's projection of the total FCC Regulatory Fee payment in the applicable projected period. c. Worksheet 8,True-Up Rate Charged,Lines 801-812,will include the current basic service rate and FCC Regulatory Fees. The B&O tax amount of$0.95 included in the April 1,2006,FCC Form 1240 will be excluded from the April 1, 2007,FCC Form 1240. B&O taxes will be excluded from all future FCC Forms 1240 filed with the City. 5. The City reserves all of its rights and remedies with respect to the April I,2007, FCC Form 1240, except those rights that are explicitly waived in the settlement agreement. Nor' Marty Wine January 23,2007 Page 3 Franchise Fee Audit Document Request 6. The Company shall agree pursuant to a separate side letter that, upon City execution of the settlement agreement,it will provide to the Consultant by close-of-business on January 26,2007, or no later than two business days after City execution of the settlement agreement,in the event City execution occurs after January 26,2007,the gross monthly amount of the advertising revenues(advertising revenue plus advertising sales commissions)for the audit period where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company is affiliated with an advertising agency that receives commissions,such as National Cable Communications(NCC)and the applicable regional advertising entity,and the net amount(advertising revenue)where Comcast Corporation and/or the Company does not have such an affiliated interest. The provision of this information to City's Consultant shall be without prejudice to the Company's right to dispute any audit findings,or the requirement of Comcast to pay franchise fess based on the provision of such information provided to the Consultant. 7. The foregoing terms are subject to the approval of City. iT erely, eter .Fe' berg cc: Mr.Richard Treich Michael Bradley,Esq. Stephen Guzzetta,Esq. ak CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: March 12, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/Mayor's Office Staff Contact Marty Wine, Asst. CAO (x6526) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. X Cable Franchise Renewal: Annual Rate Review Correspondence.. Equipment and Installation Rate Regulation Ordinance FCC Form 1205 Rate Settlement Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Resolution Study Sessions Settlement Letter from Comcast to City Information Front Range Consulting, Inc. Consultant Report Installation and Equipment Rate Chart Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Committee of the Whole Legal Dept X Set Public Hearing for March 26, 2007 Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment itiftwil Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City is conducting due diligence for the cable franchise renewal process to determine whether Comcast is in compliance with the City's cable franchise and applicable laws and regulations. Comcast files an annual FCC Form 1205 with the City, to justify its maximum permitted rates for basic cable equipment and installation. The City's cable franchise renewal consultant, Bradley& Guzzetta, and consulting team, Front Range Consulting, Inc., and Ashpaugh & Sculco, have audited all annual filings, rate forms, and equipment and installation rates, and determined that Comcast could not justify many of its maximum permitted rates. As reported to Council in the Committee of the Whole briefing of February 5, 2007, the consulting team reached a proposed settlement on preferred rates on behalf of the City(see settlement letter). Our cable franchise consulting team recommends acceptance of the settlement. The City initiated this review on April 1, 2006, and has one year from initiation of rate review to accept the settlement, so a public hearing and resolution accepting the settlement must be adopted by April 1, 2007. The settlement will result in lower maximum permitted rates for installation and equipment, and subscriber refunds in some cases. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set a public hearing to consider approving the settlement terms for the Rate Form 1205 negotiated with Comcast on behalf of the City, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Settlement Agreement. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON '�.r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REGARDING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION RATES SET FORTH IN THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FORM 1205 FILED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1, 2006. WHEREAS, the City of Renton, Washington (hereinafter the"City"), is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to Washington law; and WHEREAS, Section 623 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 543, as amended, authorizes local franchising authorities, such as the City, to regulate rates for equipment and installations; and WHEREAS, the City is certified as a rate regulation authority pursuant to rules of the `'""'' Federal Communications Commission (hereinafter"FCC"); and WHEREAS, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (hereinafter"Comcast"), filed with the City an FCC Form 1205 on or about April 1, 2006, to set forth and justify the rates it could charge to subscribers in the City for equipment and installations for the period from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, (hereinafter the"2006 FCC Form 1205"); and WHEREAS,the 2006 FCC Form 1205 is based on aggregated data that was used nationwide; and WHEREAS,the City retained Ashpaugh& Sculco, CPAs, PLC, and Front Range Consulting, Inc. (hereinafter the"Consultants")to review the 2006 FCC Form 1205; and WHEREAS, Comcast and the Consultants have discussed the 2006 FCC Form 1205 and have reached a settlement of outstanding issues; and 1 Aiimmorminn RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, based on their review of the 2006 FCC Form 1205 and settlement discussions with Comcast, the Consultants prepared a final report concerning the 2006 FCC Form 1205, which report contains various findings, conclusions, recommendations and settlement rates, and submitted that final report to the City in January 2007(hereinafter the"Consultant Report"), and the Consultant Report is attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Consultants recommend that the City approve the settlement equipment and installation rates agreed to by Comcast and the Consultants; and WHEREAS,the terms of the settlement agreed to by the Consultants and Comcast, including the settlement equipment and installation rates, are set forth in a January 22, 2007, letter from Comcast to the City, which letter(including appendices)is attached hereto (the"Settlement Letter"); and WHEREAS,the City believes it is in the public interest to avoid the delay, uncertainty and costs associated with the continued review of the 2006 FCC Form 1205 and any subsequent litigation before the FCC; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. To the extent that there is"Final Approval" of the Settlement Letter, as that term is defined in the Settlement Letter, or the substantive proposal set forth in the Settlement Letter is otherwise offered to the City in the event there is no Final Approval, the City hereby adopts the Settlement Letter, and approves the settlement terms contained therein relative to the 2006 FCC Form 1205, including(but not limited to)the equipment and installation rates set forth in Appendix B of the Settlement Letter. The Settlement Letter and the Consultant Report *4101 2 RESOLUTION NO. supporting the Settlement Letter are incorporated into this Resolution by reference. The City *""` reserves all of its rights and remedies with respect to issues and calculations not expressly addressed in the Settlement Letter. SECTION III. Subject to Final Approval of the Settlement Letter or the individual approval of the Settlement Letter by the City and Comcast, Comcast's 2006 FCC Form 1205 is rejected in its entirety and maximum permitted rates for equipment and installations are hereby set in accordance with the rates delineated in Appendix B of the Settlement Letter. The rates set herein will govern Comcast's equipment and installation rates until Comcast lawfully implements a further rate change pursuant to applicable law. If the Settlement Letter does not receive Final Approval or is not individually approved by the City and Comcast, the 2006 FCC Form 1205 shall not be rejected by operation of this Resolution and the City continues to reserve all of its rights with respect to the 2006 FCC Form 1205, including(but not limited to)the right to require refunds and prospective rate reductions. SECTION IV. Comcast shall file a refund plan with the City within forty-five(45) days of Final Approval, as that term is defined in the Settlement Letter, or such other date as may be agreed upon by Comcast and the City, setting forth the refund amounts, by category, for the 2006 FCC Form 1205. The refund plan shall contain information sufficient to permit the City to verify whether Comcast's refunds comply with the requirements of this Resolution, the Settlement Letter, and applicable laws and regulations. SECTION V. Within sixty(60) days of Final Approval, as that term is defined in the Settlement Letter, or such other date as may be agreed upon by Comcast and the City, Comcast shall make all rate reductions and refunds that are necessary based on the equipment and installation rates calculated in Appendix B of the Settlement Letter for the 2006 FCC Form 1205. 3 RESOLUTION NO. Comcast shall refund all amounts charged to subscribers for equipment or installations that exceed the maximum permitted amounts specified in Appendix B of the Settlement Letter in accordance ''" 010 with 47 C.F.R. § 76.942(d). SECTION VI. Comcast shall file with the City within ninety(90) days of Final Approval, as that term is defined in the Settlement Letter, or such other date as may be agreed upon by Comcast and the City, a certification, signed by an authorized representative of Comcast, stating whether Comcast has complied fully with all provisions of this Resolution and the Settlement Letter, describing in detail the measures taken to implement this Resolution and the Settlement Letter, and the total amount of the credits applied to subscribers' bills with respect to the 2006 FCC Form 1205. SECTION VII. Comcast may charge rates less than the maximum rates set herein for equipment and installation, as long as such rates are consistent with applicable law and are Ned applied in a uniform and nondiscriminatory way, pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. SECTION VIII. This Resolution constitutes the written decision required by 47 C.F.R. § 76.936(a). SECTION IX. This Resolution shall be released to the public and to Comcast, and a public notice shall be published stating that this Resolution has been issued and is available for review, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 76.936(b). PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 4 RESOLUTION NO. %sr APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1248:3/6/07:ma slaw *41010, 5 CormSt Cat* 1500 Markel St'cd: Phiadetphia RA 1911;2 FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY NIS INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE Januar- 22, 2007 - Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager City of Renton City Clerk Div., 7`1 Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: RESOLUTION of COMCAST'S FCC FORM 1205 RATES for 2006 Dear Ms. Walton: I am writing on behalf of Comcast Cable Communications. LLC. and its affiliates (collectively, ..Comcast"or the "Company") to resolve issues related to Comeast's FCC Form 1205 for 2006 which have been identified by your consultants Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. (the "Consultants"). Comcast believes that its proposal as set forth herein, which reflects recent discussions between Comcast and the Consultants, if accepted, would minimize the substantial administrative burdens,_ uncertainty, and delay otherwise associated with the rate review process. This proposal is being made to each of the franchise communities that participated in the consolidated review of Comcast's 2006 FCC Form 1205 conducted by the Consultants. The affected communities (the "Communities")are identified in Appendix A hereto. TERMS OF AGREEMENT RE 2006 RATE REVIEW: 1. The maximum permitted equipment and installation rates for the applicable period of the 2006 FCC Form 1205 (based upon costs for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005) will be those listed in Appendix B. 2. Based on Appendix B, if an actual rate in a particular Community exceeds a revised "maximum permitted"rate. Comcast shall lower that rate to the maximum permitted rate and issue credits to local customers without claiming the benefit of any potential refund"offsetting" in calculating the amount of refunds owed. Comcast will provide each Community a refund plan detailing the refund amounts Page 2 January 22, 2007 Now within 45 days of the acceptance of this proposed resolution by each Community. Rate changes and credits shall be issued within 60 days of the issuance of a rate order approving Comcast's FCC Form 1205 for 2006. 3. The credits will be paid in the form of a one-time bill credit, which will be identified on customer bills as "Rate Credit." Conditions 1. Comcast shall issue the credits described above regardless of a finding of effective competition in any of the Communities subject to a rate order approving equipment and installation rates consistent with those listed on Appendix B. 2. By extending this proposal, Comcast does not admit any error in the Company's established approach to the FCC Form 1205, and this offer shall not be deemed to be an admission of any such error in any civil or administrative proceeding. 3. Comcast agrees to not appeal to the FCC any Communities Rate Order that is consistent with the Terms, Conditions and rates set forth in this proposed settlement. 4. Because the Communities pursued a consolidated 2006 rate review, Comcast must proceed on a consolidated basis in extending this proposal. The proposal is therefore contingent on 90%of the Communities(as measured by customer count)adopting rate orders within twelve(12)months from the filing of the Form 1205 ("Final Approval"). If more than 10% of the Communities (as measured by customer count) fail to adopt the rate orders, Comcast reserves its right to withdraw the proposal,notwithstanding any intervening approval action in any particular Community. +ce e , it 1 e er . 'nber: lillsociate Genera ounsel Comcast Cable C munications, LCC cc: Mr. Richard Treich Mr. Garth Ashpaugh Appendix A Participating Communities Noir Local Franchise Authority Community Unit Identification Number Montgomery County,MD MD0236 Arlington County, VA VA0108 West Central Cable Agency, IL IL0847, IL0848,IL0849, IL0666, IL0871 Mountain View, CA CA0906 Renton, WA WA0068 Metropolitan Area Communications OR0325, OR0283, OR0318, OR0326, Commission, OR OR0289, OR0442, OR0290,OR0317, OR0064, OR0304, OR0341,OR0330, OR0288, OR0328, OR0333, OR0242 • Appendix B *owr Maximum Permitted Rates for the Applicable Period Related to FCC Form 1205 for 2006 (based upon costs for the fiscal year ending December 31. 2005) Installation Activity Maximum Permitted Rate 1 Hourly Service Charge I $32.50 Unwired $35.35 Prewired $25.68 Additional Outlet—Same Trip $13.75 Additional Outlet—Separate Trip $22.42 Relocate Outlet $18.42 Upgrade $17.55 Downgrade $14.55 Change of Service (Addressable) $1.99 VCR/ DVD— Same Trip } _ _ $6.92 VCR/DVD -- Separate Trip $15.02 Customer Trouble Call 1 $24.06 Equipment Rental Maximum Permitted Rate } Remote Control ? $0.22 Basic - Only Converter t $1.10 HD/DVR/HD-DVR Converter $6.50 Converter (All Others) $3.80 CableCARD $1.89 FOR SEI ILEMENT PURPOSES ONLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE Addressee Re: RESOLUIION of COMCASI'S FCC FORM 1205 RATES fox 2006 Dear: I am writing on behalf of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and its affiliates (collectively, "Comcast" or the"Company") to resolve issues related to Comcast's FCC Form 1205 for 2006 which have been identified by your consultants Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs,PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc.. (the "Consultants") Comcast believes that its proposal as set forth herein,which reflects recent discussions between Comcast and the Consultants, if accepted, would minimize the substantial administrative burdens, uncertainty, and delay otherwise associated with the rate review process. This proposal is being made to each of the franchise communities that participated in the consolidated review of Comcast's 2006 FCC Form 1205 conducted by the Consultants. The affected communities (the "Communities") are identified in Appendix A hereto.. TERMS OF AGREEMENT RE 2006 RATE REVIEW: 1 The maximum permitted equipment and installation rates for the applicable period of the 2006 FCC Form 1205 (based upon costs for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005) will be those listed in Appendix B 2.. Based on Appendix B, if an actual rate in a particular Community exceeds a revised "maximum permitted"rate, Comcast shall lower that rate to the maximum permitted rate and issue credits to local customers without claiming the benefit of any potential refund "offsetting"in calculating the amount of refunds owed., Comcast will provide each Community a refund plan detailing the refund amounts within 45 days of the acceptance of this proposed resolution by each Community. Rate changes and credits shall be issued within 60 days of the issuance of a rate order approving Comcast's FCC Form 1205 for 2006.. 3.. The credits will be paid in the form of a one-time bill credit, which will be identified on customer bills as "Rate Credit.." FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE Conditions 1 Comcast shall issue the credits described above regardless of a finding of effective competition in any of the Communities subject to a rate order approving equipment and installation rates consistent with those listed on Appendix B. 2 By extending this proposal, Comcast does not admit any error in the Company's established approach to the FCC Form 1205, and this offer shall not be deemed to be an admission of any such error in any civil or administrative proceeding. 3 Comcast agrees to not appeal to the FCC any Communities Rate Order that is consistent with the Terms, Conditions and rates set forth in this proposed settlement. 4 Because the Communities pursued a consolidated 2006 rate review, Comcast must proceed on a consolidated basis in extending this proposal.. the proposal is therefore contingent on 90% of the Communities(as measured by customer count) adopting rate orders within twelve(12) months from the filing of the Form 1205 ("Final Approval"). If more than 10% of the Communities (as measured by *ow customer count) fail to adopt the rate orders, Comcast reserves its right to withdraw the proposal,notwithstanding any intervening approval action in any particular Community.. Sincerely, Name Title Comcast Cable Communications, LCC cc: Mr. Richard Ireich Mr.. Garth Ashpaugh 2 Appendix A Participating Communities • Local Franchise Authority Community Unit Identification Number Montgomery County, MD MD0236 Arlington County, VA VA0108 West Central Cable Agency, IL IL0847, IL0848, IL0849, IL0666, IL0871 Detroit, MI MI1039 Mountain View, CA CA0906 Renton, WA WA0068 Metropolitan Area Communications 0R0.325, OR0283, OR0318, OR0326, Commission, OR OR0289, OR0442, OR0290, OR0317, OR0064, OR0304, OR0.341, OR0330, OR0288, OR0328, OR0333, OR0242 3 Appendix B Nome Maximum Permitted Rates for the Applicable Period Related to FCC Form 1205 for 2006 (based upon costs for the fiscal year ending December .31, 2005) Installation Activity Maximum Permitted Rate Hourly Service Charge $32.50 Unwired $35.35 Prewired $25.68 Additional Outlet— Same Trip $13.75 Additional Outlet— Separate Trip $22.42 Relocate Outlet $18.42 Upgrade $17.55 Downgrade $14.55 Change of Service (Addressable) $1.99 VCR/DVD—Same Trip $6.92 VCR/DVD -- Separate Trip $15.02 Customer Trouble Call $24.06 Equipment Rental Maximum Permitted Rate *tire Remote Control $0.22 Basic - Only Converter $1.10 HD/DVR/HD-DVR Converter $6.50 Converter (All Others) $3.80 Cab1eCARD $1.89 4 Final Report Regarding the 2006 FCC Form 1205 filed by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC January,2007 ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs. PLC Cer tiled Fablic Arco nn%ots and Consnitzrts Front Range Consulting,Inc. Ashpaugh& Sculco,CPAs, PLC ("A&S")and Front Range Consulting, Inc.. ("FRC") (collectively"Consultants")are pleased to provide the 2006 Comcast Form 1205 Participating Communities' ("Participants")this Final Report regarding the FCC Form 1205 rate filing made by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast")during 2006.. I. REPORT SYNOPSIS The Consultants recommend that each participant adopt the proposed resolution of the identified Form 1205 issues.. During the review of the Comcast Form 1205,the Consultants have identified three major issues with the Form 1205 as filed by Comcast. Ihose issues are: • Contract Labor; • Asset Depreciation Expense and Reserve; and • Installation Activities Outside the Customer Demarcation Point. As the Consultants identified each of these issues,the Consultants informed Comcast as to the potential problems and requested that Comcast provide supporting information to support Comcast's position. With respect to the Customer Demarcation Point issue, Comcast revised the installation times.. For the other two issues,Comcast does not agree with the Consultants that these potential issues impact the Form 1205 as filed. "' Based on the identification of these issues, Comcast began discussions with the Consultants to resolve these issues without having to have the participating LFA issue contested rate orders and facing a long appeal process before the FCC. Comcast has proposed to address these issues by reducing the Maximum Permitted Rates(MPR)for many of the installation and equipment categories., While Comcast specifically does not agree with these identified issues,the Consultants believe that resolving these issues in the manner set forth in Comcast's proposal is reasonable and administratively efficient The Consultants also anticipate that Comcast will attempt to address the concerned raised by the Consultants in their next filing but this proposed resolution does not require them to do so.. The proposed resolution requires Comcast to provide a refund plan and to reduce rates to each community on a community by community basis.. Comcast is also agreeing to not appeal any Rate Order issued by a Participant that is consistent with the proposed resolution. A genetic copy of the proposed Comcast resolution is attached to this Report. `Arlington County,VA,Detroit,MI,Metropolitan Area Communications Commission,OR, Montgomery County, l0 MD,Mountain View,CA,Renton,WA,and West Central Cable Agency,IL. Page 1 of 5 January,200'7 An ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Cacti`§c3 P-�7!,C AECou,...tints:rd Censcd!e.is 4441- Front Range Consulting,Inc. II. SCOPE OF REPORI The Consultants were retained by the Participants to review the FCC Form 1205 submitted by Comcast to the Participants in 2006.. As this is the third complete review of the national Comcast FCC Form 1205 by the Consultants,many of the issues that have been identified in the past review are also incorporated in this filing making the impact of the continued review of the filing cumulative.. The Consultants based this review of the 2006 filing on Comcast's responses to data requests and numerous informal discussions with Comcast regarding the supporting documentation provided by Comcast. The Consultants appreciate Comeast's willingness to have these informal discussions in lieu of preparing numerous detailed follow up data requests.. 111. SUMMARY OF FORM 1205 FILING The rates were: 10 201000tt{crtiint item All'll AimIP1Z change INSTALLATION CHARGES ti Nasoi Hourly Service Charge -� 24 • (• Si— 74 Unwired Installation `• �_ _ $451 Y r • $ Prewired Installation i , > $4905 • $2 Addition Outlet(Same Trip) -,.,314.4-92L: ($074 Addition Outlet(Separate Tri `= f Pa p} ,; �___....f----7-4,.1,-_,--.7.--. .:',.. �..--�. . ........................... ._._: YI-- Pr =` Relocate Outlet r ,4 -,..,..,.;...,,,:---4.-,,....,$ Upgrade . ' ,, $1S 49 - Downgrade $15,3 .! "It---u ..3' t4 - T'..- C -($0,77 Change of Service(Addy essable) $19g - _ _ VCR/DVD(Same Trip) • °� $7 29 ; x's {• $0 37) VCR/DVD(separate ( A Trip) - A,f $15$3 �. n _ % t}a 1 - • $ Customer Trouble Calt • � $�g,34ti iii � '..=:--- , EQUIPMENT RENTAL a Remote , , ..E .$0.23 1 ,%1--: ($.1y .01•) Basic-only Converter i47- $1:14: .� € ::($0:04}- Converter r ital/Analo 5 Y ��g l� $4 01 .. a. z $0 21 . I3D/DVR/HD-DVR Converter -- ,$9.91. `-'r� 4`v �'�`= - 1) ..� 4 {$3:41) : , Page 2 of 5 fanuary,2007 sly ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ce;tried Pjblic Accc rrtsnts and Censalterts NairFront Range Consulting,Inc. IV. FCC FORM 1205 ISSUFS IDENTIFIED the Consultants have identified three issues with the Comcast filing.. The three issues are: • Contract Labor; • Asset Depreciation Expense and Reserve; and • Installation Activities Outside the Customer Demarcation Point.. IVEA). CONTRACT LABOR The Consultants investigated the actual contract labor invoices incurred by Comcast for the sample systems.. The review of the invoices found that the number of specific installation activities included on the actual invoices differed significantly from the number of activities shown on the Form 1205 supporting materials supplied by Comcast_ The Consultants were concerned that the number of installations performed and billed by the contractors was inconsistent with the number of installations contained in the operational data base. Comcast in preparing the Form 1205 used the internal operational data base as support for the number of contractor installation and not the amounts shown on the contractor invoices.. Comcast did use the prices for the individual contractor installations form the actual invoices but applied its internal number of installations to the prices to determine the amount of contractor labor dollars to include in the Form 1205Now . If the installation activities are taken from the contractor actual invoices,the number of installation activities would change dramatically and would generally reduce the number of installations and hours associated with installation activities As a result,the Consultants believe that the installation rates as filed are overstated as it uses an inflated Hourly Service Charge. In the proposed resolution, Comcast has agreed to lower the Hourly service Charge from$34.24 to$32.50 which should capture a large portion of the issue identified., IV(B). ASSEI DEPRECIATION EXPENSE AND RESERVE the Consultants investigated the computations by Comcast of the asset depreciation expense and reserve calculation for Schedules A and C the primary concerns were(1)continuation of calculating depreciation expense after the asset has been frilly depreciated, (2)errors in the amount of depreciation and(3)errors in the amount of the reserve. Comcast disagrees with the identified concerns. The Consultants provided Comcast with a variety of examples of each of these issues In a few cases, Comcast was able to show that asset retirements were causing the apparent conflicts. However,in other cases, Comcast was not able to provide sufficient details to support the depreciation expense and reserve included in the filing For example, Comcast continued to record depreciation past the depreciable life of the asset and continued to show a net book value even though the depreciable life had expired. the principal impact of these issues is related to the converter category of assets. Comcast has as part of this proposed resolution agreed to reduce the converter rate from $4.01 to $3.80 for the *orw most common converter category. The Consultants believe that this reduction is reasonable Page.3 of 5 January, 2007 tZal ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs. PLC Certi:,ec P.M. Arcnuatxnts and,rns,l.3 nti Front Range Consulting,Inc. compromise and will cover most of the unexplained variations in the depreciation expense and reserve items identified.. IV(C).. INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE CLISIOMER DEMARCATION POINI The Consultants investigated the potential that Comcast has included installation times outside of the customer demarcation point. The FCC rules allow for a cable operator to only include installation costs associated with those activities from within twelve inches(12")from the point of connection of the cable to the residence., In reviewing the activities associated with the contract labor costs described above, it was very clear that the contractors routinely included activities related to a drop and drop replacement as part of the activities associated with an installation.. The activities and associated costs outside of the 12"fiom the point of connection are part of'the basic service rate and cannot be included in the installation rates unless all of the hours associated with that outside installations are included in the installation and maintenance hours_ Comcast provided an analysis of the"outside"activities that it routinely prepares for another regulatory agency.. Ihis analysis showed the amount of time associated with these outside drop activities. Comcast's resolution incorporates these revised installation horns.. The revised hours are summarized below. Ircnt 10116 l,iliI-I g Sctticrrrent ClranLe Unwired Installation ...1.0877 Y-- '79015 -Prewired Installation Addition Outlet(Same Trip) =; 4231 Addition Outlet(Separate Trip) TT-----Zi-1., _,• = 687g 3- Relocate Outlet v :,9 Y 4 —$ - 7. —. 539-8 :UPgrade -m _ . . -_.___- . = 44 t Downgrade Change of Service(Addressable) ` T �° --�- ,5398 =,_ VCR/DVD(Same Trip) -, 213 VCR/DVD(Separate Trip) , `= = 4623 3 - s `_--cam,, ice'',, ``` � T Customer Trouble Call Vs 7401 � , In several of these categories,the Consultants do not believe that Comcast has reduced the times enough associated with these outside activities but at least Comcast in this resolution has agreed *4410 to remove these outside activities. The Consultant hope that Comcast will continue to review , Page 4 of S Tanuary, 2007 ' F Mg.ill ASHPAUGH & SCULCO. CPAs, PLC Certiieed Nbtit Acccunttats and Ccosaltants Front Range Consulting,Inc. Noe these installation times to ensure that all times associated with outside activities are eliminated from the filing V. POTENTIAL RATE IMPACTS The potential rate impacts for the FCC Form 1205 issues identified above are difficult to quantify because the Consultants cannot estimate them without significantly more information from Comcast the Consultants believe that the proposed resolution offered by Comcast at least addresses these identified issues and removes a reasonable amount of these issues from the resulting rates.. Comcast has agreed to provide refund plans to each participant an individual refund plan detailing the amount of refunds by category.. Comcast has proposed to refund the total dollars to each cable subscriber as a one time bill credit. The Consultants believe that is reasonable.. VI. CONCLUSION The Consultants recommend that the Participants issue a Rate Order consistent with the Settlement MPRs identified in Appendix B of the generic settlement letter attached to this Final Report. Report Presented By: New Garth T.Ashpaugh, CPA Richard D. Treich Ashpaugh&Sculco,CPAs,PLC Front Range Consulting, Inc.. 1133 Louisiana Avenue, Suite 106 4152 Bell Mountain Drive Winter Park,FL 32789 Castle Rock, CO 80104 Noire Page 5 of 5 January, 2007 FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE Addressee Re: RESOLUTION of COMCAST'S FCC FORM 1205 RATES for 2006 Dear: I am writing on behalf of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and its affiliates (collectively, "Comcast"or the"Company")to resolve issues related to Comcast's FCC Form 1205 for 2006 which have been identified by your consultants Ashpaugh& Sculco, CPAs,PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc.. (the "Consultants"). Comcast believes that its proposal as set forth herein,which reflects recent discussions between Comcast and the Consultants,if accepted, would minimize the substantial administrative burdens, uncertainty, and delay otherwise associated with the rate review process. This proposal is being made to each of the franchise communities that participated in the consolidated review of Comcast's 2006 FCC Form 1205 conducted by the Consultants. The affected communities (the"Communities")are identified in Appendix , 10001 A hereto.. TERMS OF AGREEMENT RE 2006 RATE REVIEW: 1 The maximum permitted equipment and installation rates for the applicable period of'the 2006 FCC Form 1205 (based upon costs for the fiscal year ending December 31,2005) will be those listed in Appendix B 2.. Based on Appendix B, if an actual rate in a particular Community exceeds a revised "maximum permitted"rate, Comcast shall lower that rate to the maximum permitted rate and issue credits to local customers without claiming the benefit of' any potential refund "offsetting"in calculating the amount of refunds owed.. Comcast will provide each Community a refund plan detailing the refund amounts within 45 days of'the acceptance of this proposed resolution by each Community. Rate changes and credits shall be issued within 60 days of the issuance of a rate order approving Comcast's FCC Form 1205 for 2006.. 3.. The credits will be paid in the form of a one-time bill credit, which will be identified on customer bills as "Rate Credit.." FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY '"fir" INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE Conditions 1 Comcast shall issue the credits described above regardless of a finding of effective competition in any of the Communities subject to a rate order approving equipment and installation rates consistent with those listed on Appendix B 2. By extending this proposal, Comcast does not admit any error in the Company's established approach to the FCC Form 1205,and this offer shall not be deemed to be an admission of any such error in any civil or administrative proceeding. 3 Comcast agrees to not appeal to the FCC any Communities Rate Order that is consistent with the Terms, Conditions and rates set forth in this proposed settlement, 4. Because the Communities pursued a consolidated 2006 rate review, Comcast must proceed on a consolidated basis in extending this proposal.. the proposal is therefore contingent on 90% of the Communities(as measured by customer count)adopting rate orders within twelve(12)months from the filing of the Form 1205 ("Final Approval") If more than 10%of the Communities (as measured by 14400, customer count)fail to adopt the rate orders, Comcast reserves its right to withdraw the proposal,notwithstanding any intervening approval action in any particular Community.. Sincerely, Name Iitle Comcast Cable Communications, LCC cc: Mr. Richard Ireich Mr.. Garth Ashpaugh 2 Appendix A Participating Communities Local Franchise Authority Community Unit Identification Number Montgomery County,MD MD0236 Arlington County, VA VA0108 West Central Cable Agency, IL 1L0847, IL0848,IL0849, IL0666, 1L0871 Detroit, MI MI1039 Mountain View, CA CA0906 Renton,WA WA0068 Metropolitan Area Communications OR0325,OR0283,OR0318,OR0326, Commission, OR OR0289,OR0442,OR0290,OR0317, OR0064, OR0304, OR0341, OR0330, OR0288, OR0328, OR0333, OR0242 Noso 3 Appendix B `one Maximum Permitted Rates for the Applicable Period Related to FCC Form 1205 for 2006 (based upon costs for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005) Installation Activity Maximum Permitted Rate Hourly Service Charge $32.50 Unwired $35.35 Prewired. $25.68 Additional Outlet—Same Trip $13.75 Additional Outlet—Separate Trip $22.42 Relocate Outlet $18.42 Upgrade $17.55 Downgrade $14.55 Change of Service(Addressable) $1.99 VCR/DVD—Same Trip $6.92 VCR/DVD-- Separate Trip $15.02 Customer Trouble Call $24.06 Equipment Rental Maximum Permitted Rate ,r Remote Control $0.22 Basic-Only Converter $1.10 HD/DVR/HD-DVR Converter $6.50 Converter (All Others) $3.80 CableCARD $1.89 14000, 4 2006 Installation and Equipment Rates New Settled Filed Change in the Current Potential Maximum Maximum Maximum Permitted Operator Subscriber Permitted Permitted Rate Selected Refunds Rate Rate on FCC Rate Type Of Service Form 1205 Hourly Service Charge $32.50 $34.24 - $1.74 $28.49 ---- Install-Unwired Home (Aerial within 125 $35.35 $45.10 - $9.75 $43.99 $8.64 feet) Install-Prewired Home (Aerial within 125 $25.68 $29.35 -$3.67 $27.99 $2.31 feet) Install Additional Outlet-Connect Initial $13.75 $14.49 -$0.74 , $14.25 $0.50 Install Additional Outlet-Connect Separate $22.42 $24.25 -$1,83 $21.99 ---- Other Install-Relocate Outlet $18.42 $19.41 - $0.99 $18.99 $0.57 ( ( ( • New Settled Filed Change in the Current Potential Maximum Maximum Maximum Permitted Operator Subscriber Permitted Permitted Rate Selected Refunds Rate Rate on FCC Rate Type Of Service Form 1205 Other Install-Upgrade (non-addressable) $17.55 $• 18.49 - $0.94 1 $15.99 ---- Other Install-Downgrade (non- $14.55 $• 15.32 -$0.77 $12.99 ---- addressable) Other Install Upgrade/Downgrade $1.99 $• 1.99 ---- $1.99 ---- (addressable) Connected VCR Connect Initial $6.92 $7.29 - $0.37 $5.99 ---- Connect VCR Connect Separate $15.02 $15.83 -$0.81 $12.99 ---- Remote Control(All Units) $0.22 $• 0.23 - $0.01 $0.15 ---- Converter Box(Basic Service Only) $1.10 $• 1.14 -$0.04 $1.10 ---- Converter Box (All Others Excluding HD) $3.80 $• 4.01 -$0.21 $3.80 ---- Converter Box (HD) $6.50 $• 9.91 -$3.41 $6.50 ---- CableCARD $1.89 $1.91 -$0.02 N/C ---- Customer Trouble Call $24.06 $25.34 - $1.28 $19.99 --__ Prepared by Bradley& Guzzetta LLC 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: ; Submitting Data: For Agenda of: March 12, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton, City Clerk (x6502) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Certification of 2/6/2007 Special Election Results by Correspondence.. King County regarding the Preserve Our Plateau Ordinance Annexation Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business KC Certification letter 2/21/2007 Study Sessions Information X Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Information Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. On March 2, 2007, a letter was received from James J. Buck, Interim Director of King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division, 500 Fourth Ave., Room 553, Seattle, WA 98104, certifying results of the Special Election held on February 6, 2007. Proposition No. 1 regarding Annexation to the City of Renton for the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation Area has been certified as follows: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON For Annexation 651 Votes 39.03% Against Annexation 1,017 Votes 60.97% FAILED Proposition No. 1 required a simple majority to pass. With a rejection rate of 60.97%, the measure failed. • ..s r'ra R�a RS:I',,r N it ?4 a r1 .Th `';:a P4' `fire Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division Department of Executive Services King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 553 Seattle, WA 98104-2337 206-296-1540 Fax 206-296-0108 TTY Relay: 711 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS. COUNTY OF KING ) This is to certify that on February 6, 2007, there was held a Special Election in the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation Area, King County, Washington, for the submission of a ballot measure to the voters for their approval or rejection; That the results of the election were duly canvassed by the King County Canvassing Board of Election Returns on February 21, 2007, and the results of said canvass are as follows: PRESERVE OUR PLATEAU ANNEXATION AREA PROPOSITION NO. 1 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR ANNEXATION 651 39.03% AGAINST ANNEXATION 1,017 60.97% FAILED VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS Proposition No. 1 required a simple majority to pass. With a rejection rate of 60.97% the measure failed. Dated at Seattle, King County, Washington, this 21St day of February 2007. E , ,,, c s James J. Buck, Interim Director *..,62736 12132M .1 cr CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al#: klosset Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP March 12, 2007 Staff Contact Rebecca Lind, ext 6588 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Annual Zoning Map and Book Adoption Correspondence.. Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Ordinance Information Zoning Map Book Zoning Wall Map Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other IFiscal Impact: ‘liorExpenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted N/A Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The changes made in the zoning map by City Council action over the last year need to be incorporated into the adopted Zoning Map Book and Zoning Map. The major changes this year are to update the city boundary and zoning to reflect annexations occurring in 2006 and to amend the zoning map consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2006. The Zoning Map Book adoption is an annual task. The Wall Map and Zoning Book represent the same data in two different formats. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the annual amendments to the Zoning Map Book and Zoning Map and present the ordinance for first reading. C:\DOCUME-1\BWalton\LOCALS-1\Temp\2007 Zoning Map Book Agenda Bill.doc (cy ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ti �� NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC + PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 2, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administratort‘v STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager(ext 6588) SUBJECT: Annual Zoning Map Update ISSUE: This is a request for adoption of the annual amendments to the City's zoning map. The action before the Council is adoption of the map documents. An ordinance adopting the 2006 annual amendments to the zoning map is attached. *tow RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the revised Zoning Map Book and revised Zoning Map dated March 12, 2007. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The 2006 changes to the zoning map are completed and presented for Council adoption. Staff is requesting that the City Council adopt the zoning map in two forms. The first is a map book, which shows zoning detail by sections of the City and the second is a handout map, which shows the entire City at a glance. Both maps are derived from the identical data. Two maps are needed so that"official"maps at both scales can be made available to the public. These rezoning actions were all previously approved by the City Council. These changes include the following actions: Zoning Changes As part of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the following zoning map changes were approved: • Upper Kennydale from R-8 zoning to R-4 zoning. • Puget Colony subdivision from R-8 zoning to R-4 zoning. • Springbrook Associates from R-10 zoning to Commercial Office zoning. • Rivera property from R-8 zoning to R-14 zoning. • Kennydale Blueberry Farm from Resource Conservation zoning to R-4 zoning. h:\ednsp\zoning map changes&rezones\annual adoption\issue 2006.doc Toni Nelson,Council President March 2,2007 Page 2 of 2 Annexations Additionally, zoning was established through five annexations: • Falk II Annexation: 6.29 acres with R-8 zoning • Hoquiam Annexation: 20.49 acres with R-8 zoning • Akers Farm Annexation: 13.3 acres with R-8 zoning • Querin Annexation: 4 acres with R-4 and R-8 zoning • Maplewood Addition: 60.5 acres with R-4 zoning CONCLUSION: Council adoption of the attached Zoning Map Book and Zoning Map is recommended. ,411.01 h:\ednsp\zoning map changes&rezones\annual adoption\issue 2006.doc ..r CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ''ow ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, property located within the City of Renton has been zoned as various zoning classifications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission have held numerous public hearings and made its recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Development Committee have held public meetings to consider the zoning classifications to be assigned to various Now properties within the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the City Council established an amendment process as part of its greater Growth Management Act process; and WHEREAS, numerous individuals availed themselves of the amendment processes; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The zoning map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" on a single sheet, and Exhibit"B" as a bound Map Book, are hereby adopted as the zoning map for ORDINANCE NO. the City of Renton, and the zoning categories shown on these maps for the various properties located within the City limits of the City of Renton are hereby designated as `'' the zoning designations for those properties. Rezone ordinances adopted after this ordinance shall amend the official zoning map. SECTION II. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes on the City's zoning maps, to evidence the adoption of the new zoning map. SECTION III. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file this ordinance as provided by law and to keep a copy on file with the office of the City Clerk. SECTION IV. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five(5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1337:2/27/07:ma 2 CANNA t�.t ��2Y fDITMY CITY OF RENTON MON ZONING RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE CENTERS RC Resource Conservation cv Center Village R-1 Residential 1 du/ac UC-Nl Urban Center- North 1 R-4 Residential 4 du/ac UC-N2 Urban Center- North 2 R-8 Residential 8 du/ac CD Center Downtown RMH Residential Manufactured Homes CDR Commercial/Office/Residential R-io Residential 10 du/ac R-14 Residential 14 du/ac RM-F Residential Multi-Family COMMERCIAL RM-T Residential Multi-Family Traditional CA Commercial Arterial RM-u Residential Multi-Family Urban Center CO Commercial Office CN Commercial Neighborhood 6 School %; Prezones INDUSTRIAL IN Industrial - Heavy KINTRIDX 0 1500 3000 IM Industrial - Medium ::>:::::::::.�^: <•>;::::::::.::;::::•:::::<•: L Industrial- Light (P) P-Suffix Overlay Area (Publically Owned) Renton City Limits UY \� o ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This document la a graphic representation,not guaranteed P/B/PW Technical Services to survey accuracy,Intended for cky purpose.only and R. MacOnie, D. Visneski Thbaud me Is orthe displast ymutbne only. Toas ofuw dote P display Puryosee only.Te Ikrd the zoning fora particular parcel,Mer to Me adopted ZONING MAP BOOK �FNTO� CITY OF RENTON ZONING MAP BP BOOK CB) 9N10 MARCH 2007 ADOPTED MARCH 19 , 2007 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MAP&DRAWING BY P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: ‘11100''' Dept/Div/Board.. Finance & IS Department March 12, 2006 Staff Contact Michael E. Bailey Agenda Status Finance/IS Administrator Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. 2007 Budget Amendment Ordinance Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Ordinance Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The total of appropriations recommended to be carried forward from 2006 to 2007, and to amend in 2007, are $26,386,553. Of this total, $24,682,137 is for the carry forward of capital project funds. The balance of$1,704,416 is for various operating funds of the City. Of the operating funds, $306,266 represents corrections made to the budget with the balance being the "carry forward" of 200 6 projects and tasks to 2007. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 2007 Budget amendment ordinance and present the ordinance for first reading. H:\FINANCE\BUDGET\2007 Budget\Budget Adjustment Ordinances\Carryforward 06-07\Agenda Bill_2007 Budget Amendments.doc O� FINANCE AND INFORMATION SERVICES �.• + ® , DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: {A. Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Mike Bailey, Administrator SUBJECT: Amending the 2007 Budget ISSUE: Should the City budget be amended to provide for the carry forward of 2006 funds for incomplete projects into 2007 and other corrections to the 2007 budget? RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance amending the 2007 budget. BACKGROUND: 2006 Carry forward into 2007 - Projects begun, but not completed in 2006 may not be included in the next year's budget. This is typically true when it is unclear if the project will be completed as work on the subsequent year's budget progresses. In order to complete these projects, they are appropriated by amending the new budget to include the unfinished items. Correction of the 2007 budget - Decisions made in the final stages of adopting the 2007 budget were not included in the ordinance adopting the 2007 budget. As a consequence, the proposed ordinance to amend the 2007 budget includes corrections to the original 2007 budget. The total of appropriations recommended to be carried forward from 2006 to 2007, and to amend in 2007, are $26,386,553. Of this total, $24,682,137 is for the carry forward of capital project funds. The balance of$1,704,416 is for various operating funds of the City. Of the operating funds, $306,266 represents corrections made to the budget with the balance being the "carry forward"of 2006 projects and tasks to 2007. `Nome law Toni Nelson,Council President Members of the Renton City Council February 22, 2007 Page 2 of 2 A summary of the changes by fund is below: ,4110* Fund No. Fund Name Amount 000 General Fund 000 Mayor's Office 25,000 000 Police Department 240,000 000 EDNSP 31,738 000 Fire Department -14,450 000 PBPW Development Services 78,400 000 PBPW Technical Services 13,500 000 Sub-Total 374,188 001 Community Services Fund 32,000 006 Library/Museum Fund 12,066 108 Leased City Properties Fund 354,232 110 Hotel/Motel Fund 25,000 125 One Percent for Art Fund 24,560 127 Cable Communication Fund 98,148 131 Park Memorial Fund -260,000 303 Community Development Impact Mitigation Fund -388,962 305 Transportation Impact mitigation Fund 464,400 316 Municipal Facilities 1,648,351 317 Transportation CIP 13,126,200 318 South Lake WA Infrastructure Project Fund 3,557,382 403 Solid Waste Fund 64,493 405 Water Operations Fund 18,250 424 Municipal Golf Course CIP 10,266 425 Water Utility 169,500 426 Sewer Utility 3,515,000 427 Surface Water Utility 2,580,000 501 Equipment Repair& Replacement 232,179 503 Information Services 729,300 TOTAL 26,386,553 A detailed explanation for each of the items included in this recommendation is attached to the ordinance. Staff will be available to answer questions council may have about the recommendations. cc: Jay Covington,CAO Marty Wine,Assistant CAO Linda Parks,Fiscal Services Director Bang Parkinson,Finance Analyst Supervisor H:\FINANCE\BUDGET\2007 Budget\Budget Adjustment Ordinances\Carryforward 06-07\2007 Carryforward issue paper.doc CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF RENTON FISCAL YEAR 2007 ANNUAL BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 5241. WHEREAS, on December 11, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5241 approving the City of Renton's 2007 Annual Budget; and WHEREAS, funds appropriated in 2006, but not expended in 2006 due to capital project interruptions and delays in invoice payments, need to be carried forward and appropriated for expenditure in 2007; and WHEREAS, adjustments and corrections made late in the 2007 budget process also result in the need to amend the City of Renton's 2007 adopted annual budget; limme NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Ordinance No. 5241 establishing the City of Renton's 2007 Annual Budget is hereby amended as follows: 1. The General Fund (Fund 000) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: Now, 1 ORDINANCE NO. GENERAL FUND(Fund 000) FY 2007 Original Amended *44010 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 53,955,289 53,955,289 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 401,069 775,257 374,188 Revenues 54,356,358 54,730,546 374,188 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 54,356,358 54,730,546 Mayor's Office 25,000 PB/PW-Development Services 78,400 Police Department 240,000 Fire Department (14,450) PB/PW-Technical Services 13,500 EDNSP 31,738 Total Appropriation 54,356,358 54,730,546 374,188 Expenditures 54,356,358 54,730,546 374,188 2. The Community Services Fund (Fund 001) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: COMMUNITY SERVICES FUND(Fund 001) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 12,328,390 12,328,390 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 37,000 69,000 32,000 Revenues 12,365,390 12,397,390 32,000 EXPENDITURES Integrated Pest Management Program 12,365,390 12,397,390 32,000 Expenditures 12,365,390 12,397,390 32,000 3. The Library and Museum Fund (Fund 006) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: LIBRARY/MUSEUM FUND(Fund 006) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 2,062,012 2,062,012 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 0 12,066 12,066 Revenues 2,062,012 2,074,078 12,066 EXPENDITURES Correction to Intermittent Wages 2,062,012 2,074,078 12,066 Expenditures 2,062,012 2,074,078 12,066 2 ORDINANCE NO. 4. The Leased City Properties Fund (Fund 108) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: LEASED CITY PROPERTIES FUND(Fund 108) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 960,899 960,899 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 0 96,854 96,854 Revenues 960,899 1,057,753 96,854 EXPENDITURES Tennant Improvements/Property Mgmnt 703,521 1,057,753 354,232 Ending Fund Balance 257,378 0 (257,378) Expenditures 960,899 1,057,753 96,854 5. The Hotel/Motel Fund (Fund 110) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: HOTEL/MOTEL FUND(Fund 110) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 255,000 255,000 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 0 25,000 25,000 Revenues 255,000 280,000 25,000 EXPENDITURES Tourism/Marketing 255,000 280,000 25,000 Expenditures 255,000 280,000 25,000 6. The One Percent for Arts Fund (Fund 125) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: ONE PERCENT FOR ART FUND(Fund 125) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 60,000 60,000 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 0 24,560 24,560 Revenues 60,000 84,560 24,560 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 60,000 84,560 24,560 Misr Expenditures 60,000 84,560 24,560 3 ORDINANCE NO. 7. The Cable Communication Fund (Fund 127) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: CABLE COMMUNICATION FUND(Fund 127) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 38,900 38,900 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 40,000 138,148 98,148 Revenues 78,900 177,048 98,148 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 78,900 177,048 98,148 Expenditures 78,900 177,048 98,148 8. The Park Memorial Fund(Fund 131) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: PARK MEMORIAL FUND(Fund 131) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 54,200 54,200 0 Nario Use of Prior Year Revenue 205,800 0 (205,800) Revenues 260,000 54,200 (205,800) EXPENDITURES Reduce Appropriation 260,000 0 (260,000) Ending Fund Balance 0 54,200 54,200 Expenditures 260,000 54,200 (205,800) 9. The Community Development Impact Mitigation Fund (Fund 303) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FUND(Fund 303) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 255,000 255,000 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 845,000 456,038 (388,962) Revenues 1,100,000 711,038 (388,962) EXPENDITURES Reduce Appropriation 1,100,000 711,038 (388,962) Expenditures 1,100,000 711,038 (388,962) 4 ORDINANCE NO. Now 10. The Transportation Impact Mitigation Fund (Fund 305) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION FUND(Fund 305) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 600,000 600,000 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 2,435,600 2,900,000 464,400 Revenues 3,035,600 3,500,000 464,400 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 3,035,600 3,500,000 464,400 Expenditures 3,035,600 3,500,000 464,400 11. The Municipal Facilities Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 316) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND(Fund 316) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change *itime New Revenue 4,232,000 3,583,038 (648,962) Use of Prior Year Revenue 818,497 3,115,810 2,297,313 Revenues 5,050,497 6,698,848 1,648,351 EXPENDITURES 2006 Projects Carry Forward 3,450,500 5,987,810 2,537,310 Springbrook Trail 1,599,997 711,038 (888,959) Expenditures 5,050,497 6,698,848 1,648,351 12. The Transportation Capital Improvement Fund(Fund 317) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND(Fund 317) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 17,989,100 29,232,715 11,243,615 Use of Prior Year Revenue 5,113,000 6,995,585 1,882,585 Revenues 23,102,100 36,228,300 13,126,200 EXPENDITURES 2006 Projects Carry Forward 23,102,100 36,228,300 13,126,200 Expenditures 23,102,100 36,228,300 13,126,200 441.10, 5 ORDINANCE NO. 13. The South Lake WA Infrastructure Project Fund (fund 318) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: wrr0 SOUTH LAKE WA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT FUND(Fund 318) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 2,892,400 7,925,220 5,032,820 Use of Prior Year Revenue 10,421,527 8,946,089 (1,475,438) Revenues 13,313,927 16,871,309 3,557,382 EXPENDITURES 2006 Project Carry Forward 13,313,927 16,871,309 3,557,382 Expenditures 13,313,927 16,871,309 3,557,382 14. The Solid Waste Utility Fund(Fund 403) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: SOLID WASTE FUND(Fund 403) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 9,565,016 9,565,016 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 1,352,679 1,417,172 64,493 Revenues 10,917,695 10,982,188 64,493 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 10,917,695 10,982,188 64,493 Expenditures 10,917,695 10,982,188 64,493 15. The Water Utility Fund (Fund 405) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: WATER OPERATIONS FUND(Fund 405) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 8,273,500 8,273,500 0 Revenues 8,273,500 8,273,500 0 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 8,004,629 8,022,879 18,250 Ending Fund Balance 268,871 250,621 (18,250) Expenditures 8,273,500 8,273,500 0 viiiii 6 ORDINANCE NO. 16. The Airport Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 422) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND(Fund 422) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 Revenues 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 1,500,000 1,500,000 342,914 Carryforward reallocation (342,914) Expenditures 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 17. The Municipal Golf Course Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 424) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND(Fund 424) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 154,000 154,000 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 26,000 36,266 10,266 Revenues 180,000 190,266 10,266 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 180,000 190,266 10,266 Expenditures 180,000 190,266 10,266 18. The Water Utility Construction Fund(Fund 425) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: WATER UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND(Fund 425) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 8,780,000 8,780,000 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 0 169,500 169,500 Revenues 8,780,000 8,949,500 169,500 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 8,780,000 8,949,500 169,500 Expenditures 8,780,000 8,949,500 169,500 7 ORDINANCE NO. 19. The Waste Water Utility Construction Fund (Fund 426) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: loud WASTEWATER UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND(Fund 426) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 2,625,000 6,140,000 3,515,000 Revenues 2,625,000 6,140,000 3,515,000 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 2,625,000 6,140,000 3,515,000 Expenditures 2,625,000 6,140,000 3,515,000 20. The Surface Water Utility Construction Fund (Fund 427) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: SURFACE WATER UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND(Fund 427) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 2,300,000 3,880,000 1,580,000 Use of Prior Year Revenue 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 Revenues 2,300,000 4,880,000 2,580,000 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 2,300,000 4,880,000 2,580,000 Expenditures 2,300,000 4,880,000 2,580,000 21. The Equipment Repair and Replacement Fund (Fund 501) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: EQUIPMENT REPAIR&REPLACEMENT FUND(Fund 501) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 3,588,900 3,588,900 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 778,880 1,011,059 232,179 Revenues 4,367,780 4,599,959 232,179 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 4,367,780 4,599,959 232,179 Expenditures 4,367,780 4,599,959 232,179 8 ORDINANCE NO. 22. The Information Services Internal Services Fund (Fund 503) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriation amendments: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND(Fund 503) FY 2007 Original Amended 2007 Budget 2007 Budget Change REVENUES New Revenue 3,643,191 3,643,191 0 Use of Prior Year Revenue 434 729,734 729,300 Revenues 3,643,625 4,372,925 729,300 EXPENDITURES Budget Appropriation 3,643,625 4,372,925 729,300 Expenditures 3,643,625 4,372,925 729,300 SECTION II. A list of all individual budget adjustments and descriptions are hereby attached as Attachment A and are available for public review in the Office of the City Clerk, Renton City Hall. SECTION M. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor w 9 ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Ned Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1338:2/7107:ma 10 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount General Fund-Correct 2007 Budget Aktare 1 Add one FTE for a Code Compliance Inspector(PBPW/Development Svcs) 78,400 Salary and benefits for one FTE Code Compliance Inspector. 2 Change effective date for 2 FTE's-patrol officers-to 1/1/07(Police) 120,000 Preliminary budget included two patrol officers effective 7/1/2007,additional salary and benefits. This correction changes the start date to 1/1/2007. 3 Increase Overtime for Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement Program(Police) 150,000 Increase overtime budget for a neighborhood traffic enforcement pilot program and crime reduction emphasis. 4 Capital Outlay for Vehicles(Police&Fire) (64,200) Department budgets included funding for new vehicles;however,the vehicles will be purchased out of Fund 501 Equipment Repair&Replacement. 5 Replace BBQ for Neighborhood Program(EDNSP) 10,000 Replace the City's BBQ for the Neighborhood Program. General Fund-Carryforward 6 Community Relations Contract(Mayor's Office) 25,000 Contract with PRR for annexation outreach-extended into 2007. 7 EIS Consultants(EDNSP) 21,738 Consultant funds for Boeing Renton Plant Sub-District 1 A Revenue. 8 Capital Outlay(Fire) 19,750 The order confirmed in October 2006 was delayed due to the manufacturers production problems. Final delivery and invoicing completed in January. 9 Professional Services(Technical Services) 13,500 Final bill paid in January for aerial update work performed in 2006. General Fund(Fund 000)Total $ 374,188 Community Services Fund-Carryforward 10 Integrated Pest Management Program(Community Services) 32,000 Consultant is finalizing plan. Community Services Fund(Fund 001)Total $ 32,000 Library/Museum Fund-Correct 2007 Budget 11 Museum Intermittent Salaries and Benefits(Community Services) 12,066 Budget correction to reinstate intermittent wages for the Museum base budget. This was previously included in the Library's budget,and was overlooked in 2006 when the new Museum division was formed. Library/Museum Fund(Fund 006)Total $ 12,066 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount Leased City Properties Fund-Carryforward 12 Property Management Services(Community Services) 237,276 Final reconciliation for 2006 with Property Manager in progress. Revenue and expenditures will be processed in 2007. 13 Tenant Improvements-200 Mill(Community Services) 116,956 For tenant improvements required in 2007. Leased City Properties Fund(Fund 108)Total $ 354,232 Hotel/Motel Fund-Correct 2007 Budget 14 Marketing(EDNSP) 15,000 Council authorized an additional$15,000 for a total of$150,000 for 2007. 15 Tourism(EDNSP) 10,000 Council authorized an additional$10,000 for a total of$130,000 for 2007. Hotel/Motel Fund(Fund 110)Total $ 25,000 One Percent for Arts Fund-Carryforward 16 1%for Arts(Community Services) 24,560 To complete projects for the Aquatic Center and Heritage Park started in 2006. One Percent for Arts Fund(Fund 125)Total $ 24,560 sftitOt Cable Communication-Carryforward 17 Cable Communication(City Clerk) 98,148 To complete franchise renewal cable consultant contract started in 2006. One Percent for Arts Fund(Fund 125)Total $ 98,148 Park Memorial Fund-Changes to 2007 Budget 18 Transfer to Fund 316(Community Services) (260,000) Bids for Springbrook Trail project in Fund 316 is below estimate. 19 Ending Fund Balance 316(Community Services) 54,200 Increase to ending fund balance.B149 Park Memorial Fund(Fund 131)Total $ (205,800) Community Development Impact Mitigation Fund-Changes to 2007 Budget 20 Transfer to Fund 316(Community Services) (388,962) Bids for Springbrook Trail project in Fund 316 is below estimate. Community Development Impact Mitigation Fund(Fund 303)Total $ (388,962) Transportation Impact Mitigation Fund-Carryforward 21 Transfer to Fund 317(PBPW/Transportation) 464,400 Transfer to Fund 317. Transportation Impact Mitigation Fund(Fund 305)Total $ 464,400 Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount . Municipal Facilities ClP Fund-Changes to 2007 Budget 22 Springbrook Trail Missing Link(Community Services) (888,959) Reduce budget for a total of$711,038,resulting in budget savings of$888,959. A total of $388,962 will be returned to Fund 303,$260,000 will be returned to Fund 131,and $240,000 will be used to fund other projects listed. 23 Tree Maintenance(Community Services) 32,000 Equipment rental for pruning,removal,and replacement of 30 trees. Savings from Springbrook Trail project. 24 Pavement Repair Program:Parking and Drives(Community Services) 58,000 Root prune trees,patch asphalt,crack seal,sealcoat and stripe Coulon Park South Parking Lot and Renton Senior Activity Center. Savings from Springbrook Trail project. 25 Pavement Repair Program:Trails,Walks and Paths(Community Services) 150,000 Walkway removal and repair at Cedar River Park,Jones Park and the Main Library. Savings from Springbrook Trail project. Municipal Facilities CIP Fund-Carryforward 26 Grant Matching Funds(Community Services) 300,000 Property acquisition with grant match. Potential grant match for Panther Creek property and Sam Chastain Waterfront Trail. 27 Heather Downs(Community Services) 307,785 To complete new park construction under contract. 28 Tiffany Park Recreation Building(Community Services) 276,371 To continue project not completed in 2006. 29 Major Maintenance Parks(Community Services) 148,248 Projects under contract include:Coulon Park structural repair work$109,823;Cedar River Trail Gabion Study$18,570;Kennydale Lions Playground$19,855. 30 Major Maintenance Operational Facilities(Community Services) 21,240 Project savings to Tiffany Park Recreation Building. 31 Major Maintenance Public Facilities(Community Services) 127,804 Consultant services to prepare a Library Master Plan and Cross-use Study with King County Library System. 32 Major Maintenance Public Facilities(Community Services) 435,519 Carryforward for ongoing CIP projects including ADA Rec Building Upgrade,and Tiffany Park Recreation Building Project. 33 Major Maintenance Leased Facilities(Community Services) 50,517 Museum lighting retrofit,and 200 Mill Building elevator rehabilitation. Final approval for elevator work not completed. Page 3 Aiiimmimmoimummemmiffir ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount 34 Pavement Repair Program(Community Services) 37,099 Contract to complete Tiffany Park sidewalk construction. 35 Parks Long Range Plan(Community Services) 41,072 Consultant under contract for Comprehensive Plan Update. 36 City Neighborhood Beautification(Community Services) 21,520 Consultant services to prepare Urban Forestry Strategic Plan. 37 Museum Major Maintenance(Community Services) 10,747 Carryforward for the Mezzanine project at the Museum. 38 Major Maintenance Leased Facilities(Community Services) 15,000 Balance for the Mezzanine project at the Museum. 39 Cedar River Trail Extension(Community Services) 218,018 Funding is needed for environmental studies,surveying,easement procurement,and contract document preparation. 40 Henry Moses Aquatic Center Lighting(Community Services) 49,945 Final billing in process. 41 Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion(Community Services) 100,000 Design consultant under contract for Madsen Creek flooding improvements. 42 South Lake Washington Redevelopment(EDNSP) 26,614 Work is continuing in 2007. 43 Highlands Redevelopment(EDNSP) 109,811 Work is continuing in 2007. Municipal Facilities CIP Fund(Fund 316)Total $ 1,648,351 Transportation CIP Fund-Carryforward 44 Walkway Program(PBPW-TIP) 23,000 This is an ongoing program for 2007. 45 Loop Replacement Program(PBPW-TIP) 15,000 This is an ongoing program for 2007. 46 Pole Program(PBPW-TIP) 9,000 This is an ongoing program for 2007. 47 Bridge Inspection and Repair(PBPW-TIP) 150,000 Carryforward to complete bridge inspection which was delayed due to weather conditions. 48 Missing Links Program(PBPW-TIP) 28,000 Carryforward to complete the 2006 program. Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount 49 Trans Concurrency(PBPW-TIP) 40,000 Project data collection delayed to 2007. 50 Street Overlay Program(PBPW-TIP) 121,000 This is an ongoing program for 2007. 51 Sign Replacement Program(PBPW-TIP) 1,200 This is an ongoing program for 2007. 52 Traffic Safety Program(PBPW-TIP) 96,000 Carryforward to complete the 2006 program. 53 Duvall Avenue NE(PBPW-TIP) 1,996,000 Construction of this project was delayed to 2007. 54 Duvall Avenue NE(PBPW-TIP) (430,000) Transfer to TIP#12301 Sunset/Duvall Intersection. 55 SW Grady/SR 167 to Sr 515(PBPW-TIP) (48,000) Project delayed to 2008. 56 Traffic Efficiency Program(PBPW-TIP) 5,000 The upgrading of signal controllers will continue in 2007. 57 Bicycle Route Dev.Program(PBPW-TIP) 14,500 Bicycle route study to be completed in 2007. 58 SR 169 HOV-140th to SR900(PBPW-TIP) 5,870,000 Construction has been delayed to 2007. The removal of the Parks Maintenance Facilities has been moved forward from 2010 to 2007. 59 NE 3rd/NE 4th Transit(PBPW-TIP) (100,000) This project has been delayed to 2008. 60 CBD Bike&Ped.Connections (PBPW-TIP) 43,000 Carryforward to complete the 2006 program. 61 Environmental Monitoring (PBPW-TIP) 23,000 Replanting of wetland vegetation of phase 2 of Oaksdale moved to 2007. 62 NE 4th St/Houuiam Av NE (PBPW-TIP) 347,000 Construction delayed to 2007. 63 Strander By/SW 27th Phase 1 Seg 1 (PBPW-TIP) 50,000 Carryforward to close out project. 64 Duvall Ave NE-King County (PBPW-TIP) 3,038,000 Carryforward increase 2007 program. 65 Sunset/Duvall Intersection-HES (PBPW-TIP) 430,000 Carryforward increase 2007 program. Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount 66 Rainier Ay-SW 7th to 4th P1 (PBPW-TIP) 450,000 The railroad bridge construction has been moved to 2007. 67 Rainier Ay-S 4th to S 2nd (PBPW-TIP) 500,000 The schedule has been revised. 68 Hardie Ay SW Transit/Multi-modal (PBPW-TIP) 700,500 The railroad bridge construction has been moved to 2007. 69 May Creek Bridge Replacement (PBPW-TIP) 107,000 Carryforward to complete the design of bridge in 2007. 70 Ripley Lane (PBPW-TIP) 147,000 HUD grant reimbursement. 71 Garden Ave Widening (PBPW-TIP) (500,000) Design and construction to start in 2007. Project completion delayed to 2008. Transportation CIP Fund(Fund 317)Total $ 13,126,200 So Lake WA Infrastructure Project Fund-Carryforward 72 So Lake WA Roadway Improvements(PBPW/Transportation) 3,557,382 Planned multi-year project. So Lake WA Infrastructure Project Fund(Fund 318)Total $ 3,557,382 Solid Waste Utility Fund-Correct 2007 Budget 73 Interfund Charges(PBPW/Solid Waste 64,493 Increase funding for interfund charges not paid in 2006. Solid Waste Utility Fund(Fund 403)Total $ 64,493 Water Utility Fund-Carryforward 74 Capital Outlay(PBPW/Water Utility) 18,250 Project to furnish and install a"Micro at Source Transfer control switch"at wells 1,2,and 3 was completed in January 2007. 75 Ending Fund Balance(PBPW/Transportation) (18,250) Funding to be used for capital outlay. Water Utility Fund(Fund 405)Total $ 18,250 Airport Capital Fund-Carryforward 76 Airside/Landside Separation Project(PBPW/Transportation) 166,742 Final payment pending punch list items being completed by contractor. 77 Airport Layout Plan(PBPW/Transportation) 128,109 Project not completed in 2006. In the process of holding public meetings to determine plan. Page 6 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount 78 Maintenance Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation(PBPW/Transportation) 26,201 Engineering and permitting not completed in 2006. 79 Airport Entrance Rehabilitation(PBPW/Transportation) 21,862 Billing for 2006 not completed. 80 Capital Project(PBPW/Transportation) (342,914) Reallocation for carryforward items. Airport Capital Fund(Fund 422)Total $ - Golf Course Capital Fund-Carryforward 81 Golf Course Major Maintenance(Community Services) 7,366 Project delay due to door hardware delivery problems and weather. 82 Golf Course Maior Maintenance(Community Services) 2,900 Final invoice for exterior painting not received until January 2007. Golf Course Capital Fund(Fund 424)Total $ 10,266 Water Utility Construction Fund-Carryforward 83 Maplewood Water Rights Compliance(PBPW/Utility Systems) 26,000 To complete projects started in 2006. 84 Pipe Oversizing Costs(PBPW/Utility Systems) 30,000 Payments to developers to complete projects started in 2006. 85 Water Telemetry Systems Improvement(PBPW/Utility Systems) 13,500 To complete projects started in 2006. 86 Water System Plan Update(PBPW/Utility Systems) 100,000 To update sections of the 2006 Water System Plan. Water Utility Construction Fund(Fund 425)Total $ 169,500 Waste Water Utility Construction Fund-Carryforward 87 Sanitary Sewer Main Extension(PBPW/Utility Systems) 2,175,000 $500,000 for construction;Oversizing$350,000 for payment towards the Wedgewood Lift Station. 88 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation(PBPW/Utility Systems) 1,320,000 WSDOT I405$10,000 for staff costs;Shattuck Re-line$350,000 for construction;Landing $10,000 for staff costs;Earlington Sewer Extension$800,000 for construction;Renton Center Extension$150,000 for construction. 89 Long Range WW Management Plan(PBPW/Utility Systems) 20,000 Staff costs to complete the plan in 2007. Waste Water Utility Construction Fund(Fund 426)Total $ 3,515,000 Nitre Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount Surface Water Utility Construction Fund-Carryforward 90 Surface Water Utility System Plan(PBPW/Utility Systems) 250,000 To fund completion of contract started in 2006. 91 Small Drainage Projects Program(PBPW/Utility Systems) 103,000 to fund design,permitting and construction of projects currently in progress. 92 Lower Cedar River Sediment Mgmt Plan(PBPW/Utility Systems) 175,000 To fund City share of final design,permitting and construction of Spawning Channel Replacement Project,if Army Corps of Engineer obtains their funding for the project. 93 Wetland Mitigation Bank Project(PBPW/Utility Systems) 82,000 To fund City share of project cost. 94 Renton Storm water Manual(PBPW/Utility Systems) 230,000 To fund completion of contract for development of Manual that was approved in 2006. 95 Springbrook Creek FEMA Floodplain Map(PBPW/Utility Systems) 35,000 To fund completion of contract to update the Springbrook Creek floodplain map that is currently being reviewed by FEMA. 96 Green River Watershed Ecosystem Study(PBPW/Utility Systems) 8,000 To fund design and permitting of project started in 2006. *44110 97 N 26th St&Park Place N Storm hnprovmt(PBPW/Utility Systems) 115,000 To fund construction of project that was delayed due to easement acquisition that added cost to the project. 98 May Creek Basin Plan CIP Implementation(PBPW/Utility Systems) 190,000 To fund project construction fmal pay estimate and complete project started in 2006. 99 SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement(PBPW/Utility Systems) 35,000 Planned multi-year project. To fund completion of project design and construction of project started in 2006. 100 Surface Water Utility GIS(PBPW/Utility Systems) 12,000 Fund additional mapping in new annexation areas and perform mapping required by the NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. 101 Renton Village Storm Systems Improvement(PBPW/Utility Systems) 1,150,000 Planned multi-year project. To fund completion of project design,permitting construction of project started in 2006. 102 Lake Ave S/Rainier Ave S Storm System(PBPW/Utility Systems) 195,000 To fund completion of project design started in 2006. Surface Water Utility Construction Fund(Fund 427)Total $ 2,580,000 NIS Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment A Title and Description Amount Equipment Repair and Replacement Fund-Correct 2007 Budget +' 103 Machinery and Equipment(PBPW/Maintenance) 64,200 Department budgets included funding for new vehicles;however,the vehicles will be purchased out of Fund 501 Equipment Repair&Replacement. 104 Machinery and Equipment(PBPW/Maintenance) 54,000 Equipment approved for 2007,to be paid for from fund balance. 105 Machinery and Equipment(PBPW/Maintenance) 6,979 Funding to cover initial purchase of trailer being donated by McClendons for Tools on Wheels. McClendons will reimburse the City through a donation. Equipment Repair and Replacement Fund-Carryforward 106 Machinery and Equipment(PBPW/Maintenance) 43,000 Truck retrofit not completed in 2006 due to parts backordered. 107 Machinery and Equipment(PBPW/Maintenance) 64,000 Equipment approved in 2006,but not purchased. Equipment Repair and Replacement Fund(Fund 501)Total $ 232,179 Information Services Fund-Carryforward 108 System Projects(Finance and Information Services) 427,900 Maintenance Task Management is an ongoing capital project for 2007. *taw' 109 System Projects(Finance and Information Services) 50,500 The Granicus portion of the Web Site Refresh project is ongoing for 2007. 110 System Projects(Finance and Information Services) 210,900 New World Windows conversion is an ongoing project for 2007. 111 Network Projects(Finance and Information Services) 20,000 Metropolitan Area network is an ongoing project for 2007. 112 Network Projects(Finance and Information Services) 20,000 Wireless project is an ongoing project for 2007. Information Services Fund(Fund 503)Total $ 729,300 'Warr' Page 9 w �~ CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP March 12, 2007 Staff Contact Alex Pietsch (x 6592) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Resolution regarding the City's consideration of the Correspondence.. proposed King County Events Center Ordinance Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Resolution Study Sessions Information Recommended ion: Approvals: Council ncur Legal Dept rte6-0 Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... 0 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated " Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City is evaluating the proposed King County Events Center. A resolution is required to set forth principles and guidelines for how the City should move forward with this proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt a resolution. Rentonnedagnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Noe RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REGARDING THE PROPOSED KING COUNTY EVENTS CENTER. WHEREAS,the Professional Basketball Club, LLC, owners of the Seattle Sonics and Storm professional basketball teams, has proposed that a multipurpose events center be built in Renton on property anticipated to be sold by The Boeing Company within the Urban Center— North Comprehensive Plan designation; and WHEREAS,the Comprehensive Plan directs the transformation of the Urban Center— North to a vibrant mixed use district if and when Boeing deems property no longer necessary for its operations; and WHEREAS,the adopted zoning for this area, Urban Center—North 1, allows development of indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, and exhibition halls with certain conditions; and WHEREAS, a development agreement between the City and The Boeing Company, adopted in 2003, directs that a portion of anticipated new tax revenue generated by redevelopment of these properties be used to finance public infrastructure to support redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature is considering legislation that would authorize the King County Council to extend certain existing taxes and tax credits to generate a significant portion of the events center finding; and Ntome 1 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS,if the Legislature adopts the authorizing legislation, the King County Council has the authority to create a public facilities district for the purpose of constructing and operating a multipurpose events center such as that being proposed; and WHEREAS, either the King County Council or the Legislature may require that the extension of the taxes and tax credits be subject to a vote of the people; and WHEREAS, development of an events center such as that being proposed has the potential to catalyze additional development that will bring new jobs and revenue to the City; enhance shopping and dining options at The Landing and expedite build-out at Southport; create a new, accessible regional entertainment venue that Renton residents will be able to enjoy; and generate activity that will support existing restaurants, pubs, and shops in downtown Renton and throughout the City; and WHEREAS,the presence of professional sports teams in Renton would be a source of pride and inspiration for the youth of the City and the charitable contributions of the teams and their players would have a positive impact on the community as a whole; and WHEREAS, development of a regional facility such as that being proposed would further Renton's emergence as a regional economic hub, and has the potential to ensure the timely construction of regional road and transit improvements benefiting Renton; and WHEREAS, development of an events center such as that being proposed will likely have significant impact on the City and its neighborhoods and residents have already expressed concerns about traffic, public safety, changing neighborhood character, demands on city services, negative impacts to Boeing, The Landing, and other adjacent businesses, the expectation of a demand for a significant financial contribution from the City, the potential for lack of local control 2 RESOLUTION NO. of a King County public facilities district, and uncertainty about the long-term commitment of the 'w Sonics and Storm to the region even if an events center is constructed; and WHEREAS, the City Council is not willing under any circumstances to impose new taxes at the city-level, leave our neighborhoods unprotected from negative impacts, subsidize cost of events center operations to the detriment of other city services, or put the City's fiscal health at risk; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City will perform due diligence to determine economic benefits, potential impacts to neighborhoods and traffic, and anticipated demands on City services; engage professional assistance to protect the City's interests; work with the Professional Basketball Club, 44w LLC, to ensure quality design and sufficient mitigation of impacts; consider City investment in the project based on anticipated new revenue from the events center itself and development directly resulting from its construction; provide results of the City's due diligence to the Legislature and King County Council to aid those bodies in their decisions; and work to identify and secure additional funding sources. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1247:3/6/07:ma 4 R (.- f.� r PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 12, 2007 Compensation for Walkway Vacation, VAC-06-001; NW 6th Street and Rainier Avenue N (February 26, 2007) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal submitted by Jack Alhadeff for the Walkway Vacation, VAC-06-001, for the portion of 10' walkway approximately 163" in length between NW 6th Street and Rainier Avenue N. The Committee further recommends setting compensation at$9,800.00 for the walkway vacation. &t/tA-D.fa,;11-&t./_, Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair t r Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Dave Christensen,Wastewater and Technical Services Supervisor Jennifer Henning,Development Services Principal Planner P:\PRM-25-Street Vacations From 1990 and Forward\0053\VAC0600I 1'&D Committee Report2.doc\KLMtp Rev 01/07 bh 1; Dz rev 7 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 12, 2007 Compensation for Walkway Vacation, VAC-05-002; East of NW 6th Street (February 26, 2007) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal submitted by Jack Alhadeff for the Walkway Vacation, VAC-05-002, for the portion of 10' walkway approximately 187' in length east of NW 6th Street. The Committee further recommends setting compensation at$6,000.00 for the walkway vacation. Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair '1;1;7 Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Dave Christensen,Wastewater and Technical Services Supervisor Jennifer Henning,Development Services Principal Planner P:\PRM-25-Street Vacations From 1990 and Forward\0048\VAC05002 P&D Committee Report2.doc\KLMtp Rev 01/07 bh g^V; PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 12, 2007 Compensation for Street Vacation, VAC-06-004; Field Avenue NE (February 26, 2007) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal submitted by Matt Cyr,ESM Consulting Engineers, for the Street Vacation, VAC-06-004, for a 30-foot by 30-foot portion of Field Avenue NE, approximately 318 feet north of NE 2nd Street. The Committee further recommends setting compensation at $6,850.00 for the street vacation. Tern Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Dave Christensen,Wastewater and Technical Services Supervisor Jennifer Henning,Development Services Principal Planner , v.--_ Ty ) r..'.fir TRANSPORTATION/AVIATION COMMITTEE ::: COMMITTEE REPORT DI,, 3-1k- ;a6;7 March 12, 2007 City of Renton Trails and Bikeways Study and Map (March 5, 2007) The Transportation Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract with MacLeod Reckord in the amount of$154',131.20 for a Trails and Bikeways Study and map. 8 I ,tC(_ Marcie Palmer, Chair (:_i_lj 7 i f, _.� 'andy Corman, Vice-Chair dYN. Don Persson, Member cc: Jim Seitz,Transportation Planning&Programming Manager Leslie Betlach,Parks Director Dan Hasty,Transportation Project Manager Connie Brundage,Administrative Secretary H:Trans/Admin/Admin Sec/Committee Reports/2007/Trails and Bikeways Study and Map FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT {` F March 12, 2007 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for payment on March 12, 2007, claim vouchers 257571-257962 and 3 wire transfers, totaling $4,626,332.03 , and 789 direct deposits, payroll vouchers 67932- 68063, and 1 wire transfer,totaling $2,127,185.67 . Don Persson, Chair Denis Law, Vice-Chair 1 ' _s r o tno o i 7, w• Dan Clawson, Member FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 12, 2007 Leases for Fifth Floor of 200 Mill Building (March 5, 2007) LAG- The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve leases with United Way of King County, Washington Information Network 211, and Children's Home Society of Washington, for collocated space on the fifth floor of the 200 Mill Building and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the leases. Ul,\. Don Persson, Chair (\,( /, yea-k---, -di//41/1 1---- Denis Law, Vice-Chair .i j Dan Clawson, Member cc: Terry Higashiyama,Community Services Administrator Peter Renner,Facilities Director . #r- 3- 11a-,2007 UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 8, 2007 Establishment of the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II Special Assessment District (Referred February 26, 2007) The Utilities Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the preliminary Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II Special Assessment District. The Committee further recommends staff to proceed with the establishment of the final Special Assessment District upon completion of the construction of the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II Sanitary Sewer Main project. Dan Clawson, Chair Terri Briere Vice Chair it:) ,bfzxr4:,, /Ai Lit_ Denis W. Law, Member cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Dave Christensen,Wastewater Utility Engineering Supervisor John Hobson, Wastewater Utility Engineer C:\DOCUME-1\B Walton\LOCALS-1\Temp\CentPlatlnt-UtilCom.doc\JHtp rev01/07 bh /9c'o10/ed 3-i -a007 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. .3$' 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CALLING FOR THE ANNEXATION, BY ELECTION, OF CONTIGUOUS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF RENTON AND REFERRED TO AS THE BENSON HILL COMMUNITIES ANNEXATION; STATING THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDING THEREIN AS NEARLY AS MAY BE; CALLING FOR AN ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007, TO SUBMIT TO VOTERS OF THE TERRITORY THE PROPOSAL FOR ANNEXATION; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE WITH THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD A NOTICE OF INTENTION AS WELL AS TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONS OF KING COUNTY AND THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD, AND TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO PLACE PROPOSITION 1 BEFORE THE VOTERS, INCLUDING THE PREPARATION OF INFORMATION FOR THE VOTER'S PAMPHLET. WHEREAS, a citizen's group currently pursuing potential annexation of the Benson Hill Communities Area to the City of Renton, has submitted a 10%Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation proceedings to the City; and WHEREAS,the Benson Hill Communities Area, consisting of approximately 2,438 acres, is located within the City of Renton's established Potential Annexation Area; and WHEREAS,the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division certified the petition as having signatures representing at least ten percent of the registered voters who voted in the 2005 general election; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington, has determined that it would be in the best interests and general welfare of the City of Renton to annex the property within Renton's established Potential Annexation Area generally bounded by the City of Renton corporate boundary on the west and north, SE 192nd Street and S 200th Street on the south, and on the east, 108th Avenue SE, the eastern edge of Boulevard Lane Park, the western edge of 1 RESOLUTION NO. Boulevard Lane Division No. 2, and 128th Avenue SE, if extended, but including Renton Park and Charles Lindberg High School, as legally described in Exhibit"A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth; and WHEREAS,the City Council is desirous to call for an election for this annexation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I, The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. As nearly as can be determined the number of voters residing in the aforesaid territory is 7,446. SECTION III. The City Council hereby calls for an election to be held on November 6, 2007, pursuant to Chapter 35A.14 RCW, to submit to the voters of the aforesaid territory the proposal for annexation. SECTION IV. The cost of said annexation election shall be paid by the City of Renton. SECTION V. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of County Commissioners of King County, Washington and with the King County Boundary Review Board. SECTION VI. The City Clerk shall also file with the King County Boundary Review Board a Notice of Intention hereof as required by RCW 36.93.090 et seq. SECTION VII. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to take those actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters in the November 6, 2007, election, for the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. 2 RESOLUTION NO. SECTION VIII. The City Attorney has prepared the following ballot title for Proposition 1. The City Clerk is authorized to transmit this ballot title to King County Division of Records and Elections: PROPOSITION 1 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON The Renton City Council received a petition to annex property to the City of Renton and passed a resolution calling for an election on the question. This measure would authorize annexation of that property, generally referred to as the Benson Hill Communities Annexation Area, to the City of Renton. Shall that area in unincorporated King County known as the Benson Hill Communities Annexation Area, as legally described in the above-mentioned resolution, be annexed to the City of Renton? ❑ For Annexation ❑ Against Annexation SECTION IX. The Mayor is authorized and directed to take those actions necessary to place the information regarding Proposition 1 in the November 6, 2007, election voter's pamphlet. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1239:2/7/07:ma 3 g a,,1�■r'2 ...• ' r'� \1 mai .is `��-1;r0� 71_, ,I — �,\` 11 Illfil MI .1/ _, '� I ------ y ►,,�'-'Via♦.,, ■S IG Wall \ i, N•1 I Has /•♦ ♦I /1:•I' A��I:I�"•f` 411. \ I ♦' �•i� •�I ►`� .1„.. -.4,2141 Ill EIMA. =` �� `r��1\ ' I _ �/ V. . VIII �h� '4,`,-.".i..7: ■► yC iii a n: ■ ,� ♦ ♦ ./.•1 �/ lforff in .—...•a�..-IIII■I■P I I `V/• ♦U9L.L��♦'DIY.itlt0illO.ii i•►• �� �'I',�•�,,,,u .� 11111 „„,,...„..„...11,„ •.•s: _ �•♦♦•■N �'♦Cud �Ij■j h .4.4_,+yi,4�4i .i .•...b - � '� -� i Cy 1�lhl ■ •I■ nl.o♦ 'I .r� O■ • '•- -N� -.,.w: aucueir v: e ■■■its. „` .,. +off♦ ♦i`o, OG N■r r � �'`;�:�3 Bii�*IA.AIa'r , � ■��ii�n■►♦�� � ��i•��i�;1„ �'►1�L moi-♦ � lm :,..7-7,mu ue� 4 ::1i.43■3 ♦I `y1 r+!♦1 ej•d�, r. Ear.LAT ==.1,...*:i i ►,♦♦+♦•••ti° c u-.�i i c '��• •tiarefik ■• Ii■11111111171//fal ■QGxu a .�0,14♦p i ls:■- 'O,Iiy �• •ste,;,:_��-1��■ I. ` ���•or i ♦♦O..i�•+ pra���:11� O♦i♦ •��I.. ♦►►�J�j„i3 Fair 0 sw12,.t5t �j►' .?d.� ::►t ♦4::: iPe i9�.-' I i.J�;>♦♦■• . tl�41 ��I. IuU-a ••. itil...`14-511 PI Ir/ +•n:-I 171.raerel too■Piste♦♦et♦c .rrrr.■ •�:■+..., I�♦r.�♦♦♦�►1 7• A liklikkilffilUV4"61.11/311„'.'141 ..• n.i31k:m..►♦ � ♦�. m'.J 1 h odilhnn.n•mnl: w�� II i 32 1 ,`t► ��i•♦ice. � romp e �III " 111 �j- ___• �. R■1 1►�• ; . I-lii[f€31311111:mq�ao1 i� , .•>,�. 5, 1III167��III �1111 G� I .i ..la 1• +►`.a .NM •,• s • . [111 ••�•i�i•c:iiiiii Iii/iii•.1111: v�• �.If• 111► ■ - - • ♦ f ► I' . 17,/ - ;. .I'►►p. II, 1:.:.,..44 e:` I�III _11111 __ _ =:It .. „I,r■., u:a' a^ �•�.■• ♦� ♦ ..I 1t-iLAM11EE:■^-l ;- ♦ S:::n-.:1p.10•, ♦1 ■-Vor >>.„f4ri �• ♦ .� �III�I �I�IIr .. ♦ .::-,�•�. 1�1►4♦•i p� j SIH II�•i S.27th St m e7�,,y,>.► ♦.�., 11 11. ■ ♦ ♦. I,. II• l�,�A ��■-■uv t P'.,u. .a♦� s �PA IIIIf■�� _� iamb■: �:::u a■•■■•-a ell.0,11.1:14442.! •i i►r9 +■ a soma .� r.,,,A;00,;,-A, a _�+�A�•� :i �►♦�. �� � 11111 ♦ ►III ♦+aA.�h.- A. s .'r��a.>•.H=14.1.��,t -Am.►v=um. .r0►". ►II sausyq� • ♦; r.? zw - ► ♦ 11♦�♦e..u5s9.CtlI ii ♦ • IIEmilia midi R mi .♦O !:� I am ��ala---.r !Q♦♦■n.■p ♦ice�♦♦ r r cel:►`I♦!♦:►n ••lrylh e ♦i ■■ r, •■�di3u n�:i�-"-■-�: h �_::erg... 111.1p/.41.1 ► .�i�•ii ►I�:►I�L or : it:� -■��i �••";rfud/s< `♦ IIu tin♦•.�: d�•ii.�.' -:L. � ', L111nunrrr,■nraA* :- ' 111•- a.m11 1 11111 • SA �^ to to 11nu nuunt��_�../ Ra • .... -1 i _ INN = �1111 ♦ ♦•arn►. : .♦�! ■■ ��♦� nn _ i:7 tut3�f V ►. gDri•. �: I 1111 E. r --�:���_ _■am. , .♦ .,- ■■1111..,- •:I• .^ �.�a . SA ■� ` ,II 1., .%.\11 7 1Gl- - ,:f.�'A ,� ■�`o� ♦ = N t:,nr;.>si1 � a-... .■ra +����• �r. III �� ♦ + ►Uj --i ► ■ ._■ ye.,. �•♦4'a n a „It�:3:�0•� z..nnuppp■ur♦ ',,_az:LI III Ii', , : 4137/4/114 :�`■i Q��i► 1 or rill f •Who F ,„,%,„;), nn �''I� ' !I n ad or: 1111151 • -,■- .til lir. ' eh II=1 lip /141 ...�IP �id ..r r rap= 2 ii:_i.a1i i.4 1 ■■aia �% �,•,Oa `rs 1d _ :- E-3■i.inti mom•—Gra iiji,lei il IIII l rely E]- =.u:”+-s I;l■.�6■ 71111111 ■�..,_ �,,r' -• �....:1111.,::,..11sesL..111 r 1111...: . ♦ ��0 7111■■■-7 ri� �1111� ■ ll .� • ••,m,:cc Elt.O::17 7=-imp ops■l li �.■ ■■■, �� men■ �o.e_i.er;n;.:iim mnn�%um alsr4 mi �,=���1, 1„+ ■�� . •ION:uI RA�=�■■fes -um. �. :E411.....b ■ 11.81/Nor id►n nd►m-1��� 3:x'+.31\ I�� �,1�► i� . ;JIM Ilisifilfi _.wee �•' ::1111;1111.1e■ qI In-:.fflgl--�■ ' nark. I iv 11.141,7 a:"',i j ♦int y,. _ mi ilri �nuwnr 1111 -® ■�i i■\■. ■ N .��.b q/� WI �. a_ rielp(::troll. _����■�� � w qp■ti:��Gr�r�u: ii■:�♦h\mill �.■.nrr/a+n= ■!:o��r•1r,rera -���� �l I �-�:.� -�u. ♦Raj IItt7777�A)1171••x♦ ei Lag ::aup 17■77■��■ Ilii�•i1►►■Iue�y�n AWihJ 4.41.1 EN mil- MOA:f• -►e.r til ♦t�I.■1 � 1� ♦• • •I Ip:■ ■ ■U■11 / 11ii• ♦rr.:b 1-I-.■ga ♦♦ a• ;��„■�� , �Q ► �v�:11.11 ♦. ����� 111111 ,...1♦ -�■7■�77■ ��♦♦•In.■ . • .11^ �IL� Si1�71{i�G� ■■1111�■-wl x11.1``�. •i►+♦: � ■ 11111,:rray♦�i-�:.1��M� 7�s4 �,v 11111 a=n+g. „=•--,-19” .•■■ IN555th St s/:A■ -■ .�� : - '7� = ♦:-♦ n-.� .1 ?i!c4IPlIi' _U!I >♦i:■771111:ga�e Lem.. .Fi_:lin_■ :43223111111:1 -boa 1■,�/■I, rr ► 771■_66 Erin ....st . . .,,111.,-- ,■1..111 lir- ., so . • m • NE _ I mom a in •ma MI mil ISE 200th 22 iii rent e t 11■ 1. �I•i A.:S■t:,d%1�: -.*,ij IIS i11IIL lawn. 1111 t' 1?-. .11 azi••,,.p / 461.11 �- , �■ 04"2;1 I ...� Ititpd ur .- r/ div = `■ ■II ♦■F��f1fuV' �:11�,♦� jrj tAl ■'•! C �` it ♦�IIU►��♦L��:� \1�� �' �►►.� . -s1111.::: � A�.■�� ■i illsuu7rEN••:::.I ZW \ 115/ ��ID�i-r.����� "✓�MI 2M� ����C•'1i�� 9R- _ ����■■o e--�- ��/� �. • P.Q IN �!t;1■mu.I 1.. .t�■1 i _I?f�_,\:Is.1lI♦.♦:♦/;- -1111 X11 •i.- ■x. 1'Pk `►2't,; !■.. :1 r� i . ii.....n�l 1 ', S : ...,,,,...„4,„,.....,:„......,• � 1111 • =►- 11: JI,--■■ . 9.a•�■.:1111.. "J�_:;11111■1\��' . ■ •1111.., 1�.♦I 111 . . • - �<Y �:: .. It p ■1 ►e ■ ., - 1111 f@1= %is:/ �: n.. ET ;r a:or■e.nm■i G �♦w;4�:�T�I/\116.1 Proposed Benson Hill Communities Annexation ti®i1, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning +'‘. Alex Pietslh,Administrator Annexation Boundary tpNTO$ 15 December 2006 BENSON HILL ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The lands included within the subject annexation are situated in parts of, Sections 21, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 33 in Township 23 North, and Sections 5 and 6 in Township 22 North, all in Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, said annexation area being more particularly described as lying within the following described boundary: Beginning at the intersection of the northeasterly right of way margin of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipe Line and the existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under Ordinance No.1961 in the southeast quarter of said Section 21; Thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right of way margin, crossing SE 160th Street, to the south line of said subdivision; Thence westerly, along said south line, crossing the Cedar River Pipe Line Right of Way and 128th Place SE, to the southwest corner of said subdivision said southwest corner also being the northeast corner of the west half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 28; Thence southerly along the east line of said subdivision, crossing the City of Seattle Pipe Line Right of Way and SE 161st Street, to an intersection with the northerly right of way margin of SE 164th Street; Thence westerly along said northerly right of way margin, to the point of intersection with a perpendicular line passing through the westernmost point of curvature of the arc defining the northeastern boundary of Lot 8, Block 3 of the Plat of Cascade Vista No. 5, as recorded under Volume 68 of Plats, Page 65, records of King County, Washington; Thence southerly along said perpendicular line, to the southerly right of way margin of SE 164th Street and the north line of said Lot 8; Thence southeasterly and southerly along the eastern boundary of said Lot 8, to the southeast corner thereof, said southeast corner also being on the north line of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 28; Thence easterly along said north line, crossing 128th Avenue SE, to an intersection with the east line of said Section 28; Thence southerly along said east line, to the northwest corner of"Tract A", Fairwood Park Division 7, as recorded under Volume 116 of Plats, Pages 88 through 90, records of King County, Washington in said Section 27; 9/27/2006 1 Thence generally easterly, southerly, westerly and southerly along the various courses of said "Tract A", to a point on the northerly right of way margin of SE Petrovitsky Road (John Petrovitsky Road Ext. No. 1401), in the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 27; Thence southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly along the various courses of said northerly right of way margin, crossing 129th Avenue SE, and the northwesterly extension of said northerly right of way margin, to an intersection with the southerly extension of the easterly right of way margin of 128th Avenue SE, in the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 28; Thence southerly along said southerly extension, crossing SE Petrovitsky Road, to an intersection with the southeasterly extension of the southerly right of way margin thereof; Thence northwesterly along said southeasterly extension, crossing 128thAvenue SE, to the Northwest corner of that portion of 128thAvenue SE dedicated per deed under King County Rec. No. 20000913001594 and on the westerly right of way margin of 128thAvenue SE; Thence southeasterly and southerly along said westerly right of way margin, to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 28; Thence southerly along said east line, to the southeast corner of said subdivision said southeast corner also being the northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33; Thence southerly along the east line of said subdivision, to the southeast corner thereof, said southeast corner also being the northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, to an intersection with the northeasterly right of way margin of the Puget Sound Power & Light Transmission right of way; Thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right of way margin, to an intersection with the northeasterly extension of the southeasterly lines of Lots 2 and 3, King County Short Plat No. 779163R, recorded under King County Rec. No. 8105060679; Thence southwesterly along said extension and the southeasterly lines of said lots, to an intersection with the northeasterly line of Lot 1, King County Short Plat No. C1077001, recorded under King County Rec. No. 7806080590; Thence northwesterly and southwesterly along the northeasterly and northwesterly lines of said Lot 1, to the most westerly corner thereof, said corner also being a point on the south line of Lot 2 of said short plat; 9/27/2006 2 Thence westerly along said south line, to the northeast corner of Lot 4, King County Short Plat No. 775088, recorded under King County Rec. No. 7710200755; Thence southwesterly along the east line of said Lot 4 to the southeast corner thereof, said corner also being on the northwesterly line of Boulevard Lane Division No. 2, as recorded under Volume 82 of Plats, Pages 20 and 21, records of King County, Washington; Thence continuing southwesterly along said northwesterly line, and southerly along the westerly line of Boulevard Lane Division 1, as recorded under Volume 80 of Plats, Pages 89 and 90, records of King County, Washington, to the westernmost southwest corner of said plat, said southwest corner also being on a line 1073.56 feet north of and parallel with the south line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 33; Thence westerly along said parallel line, to a point 300.00 feet easterly of the west line of said subdivision, as measured perpendicular therefrom; Thence southeasterly to the point of intersection of a line 422 feet east of and parallel with the west line of said subdivision and a line 300 feet north of and parallel with the south line of said subdivision; Thence southerly, parallel with the west line of said subdivision, to a point on the northerly right of way margin of SE 192nd Street, said northerly right of way margin being 50 feet northerly of the south line of said Section 33 and the centerline of SE 192nd Street; Thence westerly along the various courses of said northerly right of way margin, crossing 120thAvenue SE, 116hAvenue SE, 114th Place SE and 113th Way SE to its intersection with the easterly right of way margin of State Route 515, said intersection being 40 feet right of Station 270+50 per Washington State Department of Highways, Right of Way Plan SR 515 MP 3.87 to MP 5.15, Renton Vicinity: SE 196th to Carr Road, Sta 257+00 to Sta 283+00, Sheet 2 of 4 Sheets in said Section 32; Thence westerly, crossing State Route 515 (108th Avenue SE), to a point 40 feet left of Station 270+40 per said Right of Way Plan; Thence southerly along the various courses of said westerly margin, crossing SE 192"d Street, SE 196th Street and SE 199th Street, to the northerly margin of SE 200th Street in said Section 5; Thence westerly along the various courses of said northerly right of way margin, crossing 106thAvenue SE, 105th Avenue SE and 104th Avenue SE, to its intersection with the existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3885; 9/27/2006 3 Thence generally northerly and easterly along the various courses of the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. (in order from south to north) 3885, 3109, 3751, 3268, 5205, 5041, 3268, 4069, 1743,4476, 1971, 3864, 1971, 3742, 1971, 3108, 1909, 3730, 2224, 1871 and 1961 to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT the north 100 feet of the west 230 feet of the South half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, previously annexed to the City of Renton under Ordinance No. 3432. TOGETHER WITH the following: That portion of Lot 3, King County Short Plat 779163R recorded under King County Rec. No. 8105060679, within the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33, if any; and Those portions of the Northeast quarter of said Section 6 and the Northwest quarter of said Section 5, except the south 30 feet thereof, lying southerly, westerly, southerly and westerly of existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. (in order from north to south): 3268, 3751, and 3109, except the south 30 feet thereof; and That portion of the Northwest quarter of said Section 5, lying northerly of the northerly right of way margin of S. 200th Street, westerly and southerly of existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No.3885, and easterly of existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3109; and The east 20' of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 21, lying southerly of the thread of the Cedar River. 9/27/2006 4 Cd/ fl(e - 412,-P-007 From: Bernie Paholke <proflightaviationinc@yahoo.com> To: Terri Briere <tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us>, Dan Clawson <dclawson@ci.renton.wa.us>, Randy Corman <rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us>, Jay Covington <jcovington@ci.renton.wa.us>, Peter Hahn <phahn@ci.renton.wa.us>, Kathy Keolker<kkeolker@ci.renton.wa.us>, Denis Law <dlaw@ci.renton.wa.us>, Toni Nelson <tnelson@ci.renton.wa.us>, Marcie Palmer <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us>, Don Perrson <dperrson@ci.renton.wa.us>, Alex Pietsch <apietsch@ci.renton.wa.us>, Ben Wolters <bwolters@ci.renton.wa.us>, Gregg Zimmerman <gzimmerman@ci.renton.wa.us>, Ryan Zulauf<rzulauf@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/10/2007 2:32:52 PM Subject: Renton Jet Center Pro-Flight's WebPages concerning the Corporate Aviation Facility are finally ready for primetime! http://jetcenter.flyproflight.com We are receiving a surprisingly high level of interest in the"Paholkepedia" and our published documents concerning the approach options at the Airport. Our company receives citizens' requests for information on a daily basis. This web-mechanism will allow us to share this information without having to print and deliver these pages to those interested, which has proven very time-consuming. By distributing this to the Mayor, Council and Airport Management initially, we hope to obtain any feedback you might have prior to its official public release. We want to validate that the messages we are sending throughout all of these pages are not compromising the Cities' position (and therefore our position)as it relates to the future changes at the Airport. It is Pro-Flight's goal to strengthen our relationship with the City and surrounding Communities through our involvement. Hopefully, our efforts will further demonstrate our abilities to truly succeed in this space. This website will also provide an objective alternative to the Community for the nojets.org site, something I think we can all agree is very important to all of our future planning and development success. We have been in constructive conversation with Mark Hancock, Mike Grady and several other strong opponents, gaining support for the content we are presenting through these WebPages. We hope to utilize our unique position, approach, and skill-sets to create a winning solution for all. Thank you in advance for your time reviewing this information, and we will look forward to your comments. Hopefully we can discuss them at the next Council meeting. Best Regards, Bernie and Diane Paholke Pro-elit)kk t-Y\ ? vv mati (e- 12.0‘.-1-wk